Stafford v. Travelers Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. KCD,KCD |
| Citation | 530 S.W.2d 23 |
| Parties | R. Sheldon STAFFORD and Ruth M. Stafford, Respondents, v. The TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. 27191. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Glenn McCann, Stephen D. Manz, Kansas City, for appellant.
Joseph H. Moore, Kansas City, for respondents.
Before SOMERVILLE, P.J., PRITCHARD, C.J., and TURNAGE, J.
Defendant Travelers Insurance Company (Travelers) appeals from a judgment in favor of plaintiffs on a fire insurance policy following a trial without a jury.
Travelers issued a fire policy to plaintiffs which provided coverage in the amount of $50,000 for the dwelling and $5,000 for appurtenant private structures. Travelers paid the $50,000 for total loss to plaintiff's dwelling and the sole issue in this case is whether or not Travelers is obligated to pay plaintiffs $5,000 under the appurtenant private structures coverage for a garage which was also totally destroyed.
Plaintiffs' house faced Lake Lotawana with a two story exposure toward the water. The actual rear of the house was on the west toward the road with only the upper story exposed at that point. The garage was built after the house and occupied a single story on the same level as the upper story of the house facing the west. A corner of the garage touched the northwest corner of the house with the garage then extending toward the south and west at about a 45 angle from the house. This resulted in the garage extending on the west beyond the west side of the house. Both the house and the garage had complete exterior walls, however, there was a concrete area between the two from the point where the corners came in contact and extending almost one-half of the width of the garage. This concrete area had been enclosed with a wall on the southwest and a roof.
The area between the house and the garage was referred to as a breezeway and was used primarily for food storage. The garage was used for the normal purpose of storing automobiles, but in addition, a lawnmower and a deep freeze were located there. The roofline of the breezeway was not level with the house and garage, so there was not a common roofline extending from the garage to the house.
According to plaintiff's testimony they had paid $55,000 for the house, including the garage and lot. The policy provisions which give rise to this controversy are contained in what are referred to as Coverages 'A' and 'B'. The portion of Coverage 'A' causing the difficulty reads as follows: 'This policy covers: (a) the building described, including additions in contact therewith, occupied principally for dwelling purposes.' The portion of Coverage 'B' in question reads: 'This policy covers private structures appertaining to the premises and located thereon, . . . This coverage does not include . . . (b) any structure (except structures used principally for private garage purposes) which are wholly rented or leased to other than a tenant of the described dwelling.'
The plaintiffs contend the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Ins. Companies v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc.
...Robin v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv., Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Mo.1982) (en banc) (citations omitted) (quoting Stafford v. Travelers Ins. Co., 530 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Mo.Ct.App.1975)). Indeed, as this Court has pointed out, Missouri courts: do not necessarily accept the construction accorded to pol......
- Barber v. LaFromboise
-
Crim v. National Life and Acc. Ins. Co., 61899.
...an insurance policy should be construed to meet the reasonable expectation of the layman who purchased the policy. Stafford v. Travelers Ins. Co., 530 S.W.2d 23 (Mo.App.1975); Adams v. Covenant Sec. Ins. Co., 465 S.W.2d 32 (Mo.App.1971); N. W. Electric Power Coop., Inc. v. American Motorist......
-
Hocker Oil Co., Inc. v. Barker-Phillips-Jackson, Inc.
...Krombach, 827 S.W.2d at 210; Robin v. Blue Cross Hosp. Service, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Mo. banc 1982); Stafford v. Travelers Ins. Co., 530 S.W.2d 23, 25 (Mo.App.1975); Adams v. Covenant Sec. Ins. Co., 465 S.W.2d 32, 34 (Mo.App.1971). The meanings insurance experts attribute to nontechni......