Tate v. Jasper County Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1908
• Citation: 133 Mo. App. 584,113 S.W. 659
• Parties: TATE v. JASPER COUNTY FARMERS' MUT. INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

113 S.W. 659

133 Mo. App. 584

TATE v.JASPER COUNTY FARMERS' MUT. INS. CO.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri,

November 16, 1908.

1. INSURANCE (§ 151)—FIRE INSURANCE—DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY — VARIANCE BETWEEN POLICY AND APPLICATION.

Though a by-law of insurer makes the application for insurance a part of the contract of insurance, yet the policy, executed, delivered, and accepted at a later date than the application, will control it in case of variance between them in the description of the property.

2. INSURANCE (§ 163)—PROPERTY INSURED— "ADDITION."

A building detached from the main dwelling, but used as a part of it, is an "addition" within a fire policy on "dwelling and addition."

3. INSURANCE (§ 163)—PROPERTY INSURED— "CONTENTS OF DWELLING."

A policy on "dwelling and addition" and "contents of dwelling" does not cover contents of the addition.

For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 3, pp. 2285-2295; vol. 8, p. 7646.]

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jasper County; Howard Gray, Judge.

Action by J. P. Tate against the Jasper County Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company.From the judgment both parties appeal.Affirmed.

McReynolds & Halliburton, for plaintiff.Joe D. Harris and H. L. Shannon, for defendant.

BROADDUS, P. J.

This is a suit on a policy of insurance issued by defendant on the 22d day of June, 1905, whereby defendant insured the plaintiff against loss by fire on the following property: "Dwelling and addition, * * * in the sum of thirteen hundred dollars, and upon the contents of said dwelling in the sum of twelve hundred dollars."On February 10, 1906, a structure, claimed to be an addition to said building, was destroyed by fire with the goods and contents therein, and the main building was damaged.The defense is: That plaintiff made application on property described as follows, to wit: "Frame dwelling, 16×38 feet, 1½ stories, age 14 years; frame addition, 18×38, 1 story, age 14 years; 1 porch."And that, by the constitution and by-laws of the organization of which plaintiff is a member, the said application became a part of the contract of insurance.The plaintiff replied to the effect that the only application he ever made for such insurance was in blank, and that, if there was any written description inserted therein, it was the act of the defendant.The testimony tends to show that there was a structure close to the main building that was used in connection with it, and in which were kept family stores and other things used for family purposes, but not directly attached to such main building.The application, signed by plaintiff, was introduced by defendant, in which the description of the property coincides with the statement in defendant's...