Svea Fire & Life Ins. Co. v. Walker
| Decision Date | 22 November 1932 |
| Citation | 247 Ky. 273,56 S.W.2d 967 |
| Parties | SVEA FIRE & LIFE INS. CO. v. WALKER. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied March 7, 1933.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Webster County.
Suit by Cass L. Walker against the Svea Fire & Life Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
F. M Drake, of Louisville, and C. W. Bennett, of Dixon, for appellant.
Rayburn & Withers, of Dixon, for appellee.
Cass L Walker sued the Svea Fire & Life Insurance Company upon a contract of insurance for $1,060, asserting a total loss of the insured property. A judgment in plaintiff's favor was reversed by this court upon the ground that the petition was fatally defective in failing to allege the value of the insured property at the time of its destruction. Svea Fire & Life Insurance Co. v. Walker, 235 Ky. 289, 30 S.W.2d 1105. After the mandate of this court was filed, the petition was amended to conform to the opinion, and the case was retried. The plaintiff again recovered a verdict for $1,060, upon which judgment was rendered allowing interest from the date the suit was filed.
The insurance company has appealed again, insisting that the plaintiff's evidence of value was incompetent, that improper and prejudicial argument to the jury was permitted and that interest on the amount of the verdict from the beginning of the action was erroneously allowed.
1. The plaintiff was a dealer in automobiles, and the insured car was held for resale. The testimony tended to show that the car was new, and in good condition; that the original cost thereof was $1,100; and that its reasonable market value at the time of its destruction exceeded the amount of the insurance. Criticism is leveled at questions addressed to the plaintiff designed to elicit his opinion as to the reasonable market value of the car to him as a salesman and as an agent. The objection to these questions was sustained. The witness was recalled later and permitted to testify to the reasonable market value of the car. Another witness was permitted to express an opinion as to the reasonable market value of the automobile to a retail salesman. The reference to the salesman was unnecessary, but the car was not in use, and possessed no special value to a salesman. It is not apparent how the reference to a retail salesman could be material unless it was meant to suggest the qualifications of the witness. The character of the car was fully developed, and any technical inaccuracy in the question asked the witness was not prejudicial to the appellant.
The authorities sustain the view that witnesses familiar with personal property may testify...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Svea Fire & Life Ins. Co. v. Walker
-
Kaelin v. Smith, No. 2008-CA-001515-MR (Ky. App. 3/19/2010)
...who is familiar with personal property can testify as to its value even if they are not experts. Svea Fire & Life Ins. Co. v. Walker, 247 Ky. 273, 56 S.W.2d 967, 967 Appellants argue that Mr. Stovall's testimony was not proper because he was not an expert. They argue that his testimony was ......