Struble v. Square Deal Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 15 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | 46916. |
| Citation | 24 N.W.2d 441,237 Iowa 1155 |
| Parties | STRUBLE v. SQUARE DEAL INS. CO. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Underhill & Underhill, of Onawa, and Lehmann, Hurlburt, Hossfeld Blanchard & Cless, of Des Moines, for appellant.
Prichard & Prichard and John D. Beardsley, all of Onawa, for appellee.
Plaintiff's action at law is based on a claim for a loss to crops by reason of damage by hail and for which he seeks recovery on a hail insurance policy issued to him by the defendant company. The original policy, as issued, insured crops against loss by hail on three farms operated by the plaintiff. It is provided in the policy that if insured shall move to a different location the policy will automatically transfer to the new location. It is plaintiff's claim that he changed some of his farming operations during the season of 1945, that the crops raised at the new location were damaged by hail, and under the terms of the original policy they were insured against loss. The defendant denies that plaintiff did move and the vital question involved in this litigation is whether or not the plaintiff did, in fact, 'move'. There was a trial to the court, a jury being waived. It was the ruling of the court that the policy covered plaintiff's loss and judgment was thereafter entered against the defendant company, after allowance of a counterclaim interposed by the company for the claimed premium due. The defendant has appealed.
The three farm properties originally covered by the policy issued to appellee are of varying sizes and are located in three different townships in Monona County, Iowa. It is disclosed by the record that in 1939 appellee acquired 390 acres of land in Sioux Township, Monona County, which was personally operated by him prior to 1945. In 1945 this farm was rented to two parties on a share basis. During that year 20 acres of corn were planted by the tenants on this Sioux Township farm and the crop made 70 to 80 bushels to the acre. There was in addition some 40 acres of late corn which was used for ensilage. Twenty acres of wheat were also lost because of wet ground.
The land upon which the appellee claims to have moved and on which he asserts he had the loss to the crop by hail is owned by appellee's wife. From 1928 through 1932 appellee farmed it. From 1933 through 1944 it was rented out to other parties. In 1945 appellee personally operated this farm and thereon planted 60 of the 80 acres to corn and pop corn. The court found the crop on this farm was damaged by hail and that it was covered by the policy issued to appellee.
The policy contains the following provision:
In the application for insurance the following provision is incorporated.
It is shown by the foregoing that in case the assured shall 'move' to a different location the policy will cover the crops raised on the new location if (1) the assured notifies the company of such change and (2) regardless of the failure to notify the company of the change. The record does not show that the company was in any way informed of the appellee's claimed new farming operations.
The record quite definitely discloses that the appellee did not carry on personal farming operations on the Sioux Township farm in 1945 but did personally farm the land owned by his wife. Consequently the question that is determinative of this case is whether or not the appellee did 'move' so that the claimed loss comes within the provisions of the policy and the application. In connection with...
To continue reading
Request your trial