Stout v. Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co. Co.
Decision Date | 11 October 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 9873,9873 |
Citation | 385 P.2d 608,14 Utah 2d 414 |
Parties | d 414 Vera M. STOUT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. WASHINGTON FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. |
Court | Utah Supreme Court |
Mabey, Ronnow & Madsen, Salt Lake City, for appellant.
Barton & Klemm, Salt Lake City, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover, under a fire insurance policy, damages for personal property destroyed in a fire. Defendant insurance company appeals from a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The facts are not in dispute. The plaintiff had secured a fire policy from the defendant upon her home. The policy was in effect at the time of the loss. At the rear of the home and on the same lot was a separate building which was used by the plaintiff as a tire-recapping shop. It is this building that burned.
At the time of the fire plaintiff had stored in the shop certain personal property consisting of furniture and other property of a character connected with the home and in no way connected with the business. It is for the loss of this personal property that plaintiff seeks recovery under the terms of the policy in question. The sole issue to be resolved is the meaning of the word 'premises' as used in the insurance contract.
The policy, in addition to insuring the dwelling against loss by fire, also, inter alia, insured the personal property of the owner against loss by fire. It provided under 'Coverage C' as follows:
1. 'On Premises: This policy covers unscheduled personal property usual or incidental to the premises as a dwelling owned, worn or used by an insured, while on the premises, * * *
2.
To support its contention that the damaged personal property was not on the 'premises' defendant refers to the following provisions found elsewhere in the policy:
'Declarations
'General Conditions
'Premises
'The unqualified word 'premises' means the premises described in the Declarations, including grounds, garages, stables and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
P. E. Ashton Co. v. Joyner
...Colo. 147, 285 P. 756 (1930).4 Jorgensen v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 13 Utah 2d 303, 373 P.2d 580 (1963); Stout v. Washington Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 14 Utah 2d 414, 385 P.2d 608 (1963); concurring opinion of Wolfe, J., Handley v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 106 Utah 184, 147 P.2d 319, 152 A.L.R. ......
-
Diamond T Utah, Inc. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...sold under conditional sales contracts are covered, and that this ambiguity should be resolved in its favor. See Stout v. Washington Fire & Marine, 14 Utah 2d 414, 385 P.2d 608. It asserts that 'the insurance contract itself provided that the insured's interest will be insured on used autom......