Sturgis Nat. Bank v. Md. Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1930
• Docket Number: No. 108.,108.
• Citation: 252 Mich. 426,233 N.W. 367
• Parties: STURGIS NAT. BANK v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

252 Mich. 426

233 N.W. 367

STURGIS NAT. BANK

v.MARYLAND CASUALTY CO.

No. 108.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 2, 1930.

Error to Circuit Court, St. Joseph County; Blaine W. Hatch, Judge.

Action by Sturgis National Bank against the Maryland Casualty Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

Jacobs & Dresser, of Sturgis, for appellant.

Stevens T. Mason, of Detroit, and Mason, Alexander & McCaslin, of Grand Rapids, for appellee.

BUTZEL, J.

This case was presented to the lower court on an agreed statement of facts. The main question is, What does the word ‘tools' mean in a burglary insurance policy.

On December 17, 1928, at 12:45 p. m., four thugs entered the Sturgis National Bank, plaintiff. All of the customers, together with the employees, with the exception of the teller, were forced at the point of guns to lie down on the floor of a back room. The teller refused to open the combination of the vault. After being struck on the head with a gun butt and then having the gun pointed at him, he yielded and unlocked the safe. The bank was insured by Maryland Casualty Company, defendant, in the amount of $15,000, which is less than plaintiff's loss. The insuring clause defining burglary and limiting the liability of the company is as follows: ‘Maryland Casualty Company, Baltimore, does hereby agree with the Assured. * * * To pay the Assured for loss sustained by the Assured or by the owner (a), by burglary of money and securities feloniously abstracted during the day or night, from within that part of any safe or vault to which the insurance under this paragraph 1 applies, by any person or persons who shall have made forcible entry therein by the use of tools, explosives, electricity, gas or other chemicals, while such safe or vault is duly closed and locked.’

In the stipulated facts of the case, it is stated that the form of policy was a standard one; that the insuring clause was copyrighted by the American Bankers' Association of which plaintiff is a member, and was adopted by defendant under a license granted by the association. The parties further stipulated:

‘It is the claim of the plaintiff that the said vault and the said safe located therein were burglarized within the meaning of the said policy of insurance in that the circumstances of this case constitute a forcible entry into the safe by the use of tools contending that Walter Reick, though innocent and unwilling, and the gun used to intimidate him, were ‘tools,’ in a sense admissible under the language of the policy.

‘It is the claim of the defendant that even though it may be true that in one sense a person may be figuratively the tool of another, it is clear from the language of the policy that this is not the kind of tools which the policy contemplates. The tools referred to in the policy are those such as are employed by burglars to force an entrance into safes or vaults.

‘It is agreed that if the contention of the plaintiff is correct the plaintiff is entitled to a judgment against the defendant for fifteen thousand dollars and interest from December 24, 1928, to date of trial at five per cent. per annum.

‘It is agreed that if the contention of the defendant is correct the defendant is entitled to a verdict of no cause of action.’

The lower court rendered a judgment in favor of defendant and found that the policy did not cover a loss by robbery such as has been described. This is the sole question on appeal.

It is the claim of defendant that the wording of the policy insures against burglary, but not against robbery, and that in any event forcible entry was not made by the use of tools, explosives, electricity, gas, or other chemicals, as stated in the policy. Plaintiff claims, however, that the safe was burglarized within the meaning of the policy, because of the forcible entry of the safe by the use of tools in the sense that the cashier was an innocent and unwilling tool of the robbers, and also that a revolver is a burglar's tool.

There are exceptions to the rule that the wording of an insurance policy will be construed most strongly in favor of the insured. The rule does not apply when the wording is not that of the insurer, but is taken from a statute or from some...