Stephanie v. Consumers Mutual Ins. Co.
| Citation | 246 Minn. 62,74 N.W.2d 116 |
| Decision Date | 23 December 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 36628,36628 |
| Parties | Alfred STEPHANIE, Respondent, v. CONSUMERS MUTUAL INS. CO., Appellant, Frank Gill, Defendant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Insurance contract must be construed in accordance with its plain terms. Where policy provided coverage in the event of loss to interior of building (house trailer) due to rain if property covered first sustained damage to roof by force of hail, and evidence established that as a result of hail asphalt and tar paper composition roof had been perforated, Held resulting damage covered by policy even though plywood under composition roof had not been perforated but water had seeped through seams thereof.
2. Evidence considered and Held to sustain verdict for $575 damages to plaintiff's trailer as a result of hail storm, all of which was within coverage of policy.
Frank L. King, Long Prairie, for appellant.
John H. Shaughnessy, St. Cloud, for respondent.
Action for damages to plaintiff's house trailer under the 'extended coverage' provisions of a policy of fire and extended coverage insurance issued by defendant Consumers Mutual Insurance Company in effect at the time of loss. The jury returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor in the sum of $575. The provision of the policy directly involved reads as follows:
'This Company shall not be liable for loss to the interior of the building or the property covered therein caused, (a) by rain, snow, sand or dust, whether driven by wind or not, Unless the building covered or containing the property covered shall first sustain an actual damage to roof or walls by the direct force of wind or hail and then shall be liable for loss to the interior of the building or the property covered therein as may be caused by rain, snow, sand or dust entering the building through openings in the roof or walls made by the direct action of wind or hail * * *.' (Italics supplied.)
Losses payable under the policy are limited to $800 for damages to the trailer and $150 for damages to its contents.
The damages to the house trailer and its contents, for which this action was instituted, followed a hail and rain storm occurring June 24, 1954. It is plaintiff's contention that as a result thereof hail striking the trailer dented the sides and perforated the asphalt and paper covering which formed part of the roof and covered the plywood thereon, permitting water to seep through into the interior so that as a result damages to the sides, the roof, and the interior of the trailer, as well as to the furniture therein, were sustained.
Defendant insurance company contends that, while there is no dispute that water entered the trailer from the roof and damaged the interior walls and contents thereof, this was the result of deterioration of and defects in the plywood roof covering which existed before the hail storm in question, so that the resulting damage was excluded under the above provisions of its policy; and further that in any event the verdict in the sum of $575 was excessive.
The testimony submitted in support of plaintiff's claim may be summarized as follows: Mrs. Alfred Stephanie, wife of the plaintiff, testified that the trailer was purchased new in 1950 and had been in its present location since 1952; that during the hail storm of June 24, 1954, harge hail stones dented its metal sidings, chipping the paint and leaving rust spots thereon; that they also punched holes in the roof of the trailer so that as a result rain seeped into its interior, completely soaking it and its contents and bulging and warping its walls; that various articles of furniture, including a televison set, were soaked with water and soiled; that the oil burner in the trailer became rusted; and that after the storm she could see holes in the trailer roof which prior to the storm had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greenlee v. Drees
...plain meaning of the language. Tomlyanovich v. Tomlyanovich, 239 Minn. 250, 58 N.W.2d 855, 50 A.L.R.2d 108; Stephanie v. Consumers Mutual Ins. Co., 246 Minn. 62, 74 N.W.2d 116; Bobich v. Oja, 258 Minn. 287, 104 N.W.2d 19; Shake v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 158 Minn. 40, 196 N.W. 804; Motor......
-
Owens v. International Business and Mercantile Reassurance Co.
...537 (Mich.1919) (hail damage to fertilized blossoms compensable under hail policy protecting loss to fruit); Stephanie v. Consumers Mut. Ins. Co., 74 N.W.2d 116, 118 (Minn.1955) (water damage after roof had been damaged by hail storm constituted direct loss under hail policy); Strother v. N......
- Minnesota Baptist Convention v. Pillsbury Academy, 36617