State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trautwein
| Decision Date | 24 March 1967 |
| Citation | 414 S.W.2d 587 |
| Parties | STATE AUTOMOBILE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. E. T. TRAUTWEIN, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
John G. Crutchfield, Jones, Ewen & Mackenzie, Louisville, for appellant.
Richard M. Trautwein, Rubin & Trautwein, Louisville, for appellee.
JOHN J. WINN, Special Commissioner.
The plaintiff, E. T. Trautwein, had just completed constructing a four-unit apartment building. Vandals or thieves forcibly entered three of the units by jimmying the entrance doors. The fourth unit had already been rented and its entrance door was not locked. An air conditioning unit had been permanently installed in each apartment by Trautwein and these units were removed and carried off by a person or persons whose identity has never been discovered.
It is agreed that the replacement value of the air conditioners is $648.00 and that other damage to the apartments amounted to $194.50. Trautwein sued the State Automobile Mutual Insurance Company claiming that his total loss was covered by his insurance policy with that company. The case was submitted by agreement for summary judgment on the respective motions of the litigants. The trial court awarded Trautwein the full amount of the loss and this appeal is from that judgment.
The policy contained a 'Vandalism and Malicious Mischief Endorsement,' which in its pertinent part reads as follows:
'1. In consideration of the premium for this coverage shown on the first page of this policy, and subject to the provisions of this policy of fire insurance and the Extended Coverage Endorsement attached thereto and of this endorsement, the coverage under said Extended Coverage Endorsement is hereby extended to include direct loss to the described property by Vandalism and Malicious Mischief.
'2. The term 'Vandalism and Malicious Mischief' as used herein is restricted to and includes only wilful and malicious physical injury to or destruction of the described property.
'3. When this endorsement is attached to a policy covering direct loss to the described property, this Company shall not be liable under this endorsement for any loss
(a) * * *
(b) by pilferage, theft, burglary or larceny, except loss by wilful and malicious physical injury to or destruction of a building described and insured hereunder.' (All Emphasis Ours)
The sole question to be decided is whether or not all or any of claimant's loss was covered by the policy. The facts are not in dispute since the only testimony in the case is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cresthill Industries, Inc. v. Providence Washington Ins. Co.
...throwing rocks). Cf. United States Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Bimco Iron & Metal Corp., 464 S.W.2d 353 (Tex.); State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trautwein, 414 S.W.2d 587 (Ky.), distinguishing Frisbie v. Fidelity Cas. Co., 133 Mo.App. 30, 112 S.W. 1024 (recovery for the destruction of plate glass w......
-
Georgitsi Realty, LLC v. Penn–Star Ins. Co.
...no intervening act or agency” between the act and the damage to the insured property. 753 F.2d at 537 (citing State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Trautwein, 414 S.W.2d 587, 589 (Ky.1967)). The King court similarly held that, for purposes of construing a policy covering acts of vandalism, “it is ge......
-
SJP Props., Inc. v. Mount Vernon Fire Ins. Co.
...So.2d at 380; Smith, 936 S.W.2d at 261; Sharplin v. Cas. Reciprocal Exch., 628 So.2d 217 (La. Ct. App. 1993); State Auto. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Troutwein, 414 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. 1971); Pryor v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 74 Cal. App.3d 183 (1977); Beauty Supplies, 526 S.W.2d 75). Exclusions Even ......
-
Burgess Farms v. New Hampshire Ins. Group
...Terry, 451 S.W.2d 303 (Tex.Civ.App.1970). Other courts specifically reject this requirement. See, e.g., State Automobile Mutual Ins. Co. v. Trautwein, 414 S.W.2d 587 (Ky.Ct.App.1967); Cruse v. Government Employees Ins. Co., supra. In all of these cases, the absence of proof of a fixed inten......