Travelers Indem. Co. v. Jarrett
| Decision Date | 11 July 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 4142,4142 |
| Citation | 369 S.W.2d 653 |
| Parties | The TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellant, v. Edward L. JARRETT, Sr., Appellee. |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Louis Muldrow, Waco, for appellant.
Minor L. Helm, Jr., Waco, for appellee.
Cause of loss is the chief issue in this suit on a Texas Standard Homeowner's insurance policy. The insurer says there is no evidence to support the jury findings to the effect that plaintiff's electric refrigerator was damaged as a result of lightning having cut off its electrical supply.
The policy insured against 'loss by lightning.' It excluded, as material here, 'loss caused by inherent vice, wear and tear, deterioration; rust, rot, mould or other fungi', and contamination. We test appellant's no evidence points, as we are required to do, by considering the record under the rule summarized in Fisher Construction Co. v. Riggs, 160 Tex. 23, 325 S.W.2d 126.
Insured's residence was equipped with 10 separate electrical circuits, each of which was controlled by a separate magnetic circuit breaker. An excessive surge of current in any of the circuits would automatically actuate a corresponding switch in a breaker panel so as to open the circuit, as would a fuse. If the source of such surge of current was from without the house, all 10 switches would be thrown, and the circuit would remain incomplete until the switches were manually returned to an 'on' position so as to close the circuit and restore the flow of current. Insured left his home unoccupied for 12 days, all electrical appliances but the refrigerator being disconnected. When he returned he found the freezing mechanism of the refrigerator was stopped; that all 10 circuit breaker switches were thrown to the 'off' or neutral position, and a large quantity of food in the refrigerator had putrefied, damaging the refrigerator.
Plaintiff, an electrical engineer, testified that an interior 'short' in any circuit would result in disengaging only the circuit breaker for that single circuit; that there had never been an interruption of electric power in the residence before or since this occassion; that a sudden surge of excess electricity from an exterior source would be required to throw 10 switches and break all circuits; that lightning was the only thing he could think of that would have this effect; that lightning striking a power line would create tremendous heat, increasing voltage and amperage, activating the service line transformer circuit breaker so as to disrupt the service and shunt the current into the path of least resistance; that other suggested causes 'probably wouldn't come to the house.'
A power company employee's testimony was that there were one or more severe electrical storms in the area during insured's absence; that the breaker on the company's transformer from its transmission line to the feeder line serving insured's section of the city was tripped and closed one time during the electrical storm; that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pioneer Chlor Alkali v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., CV-S-93-276-RLH.
...v. Continental Casualty Co., 506 F.Supp. 1332, 1334 (N.D.Tx.1981), except foreseeability is not an element, Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Jarrett, 369 S.W.2d 653, 655 (Tx.Civ.App.1963) (citations within both cases 6 Although perhaps containing an unnecessary adjective, and not at all making th......
-
Fred Meyer, Inc. v. Central Mutual Insurance Company
...Kuniholm v. Portland Elec. Power Co., 133 Or. 246, 289 P. 1055 (1930). Although less apposite, the recent case of Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Jarrett, 369 S.W.2d 653 (Tex.1963), involves the same legal principle. There a bolt of lightning struck certain power lines leading to plaintiff's hom......
-
Federal Ins. Co. v. Bock, 51
...The courts recognize a distinction between the terms 'loss' and 'direct loss' as used in an insurance policy. Travelers Indemnity Company v. Jarrett, Tex.Civ.App., 369 S.W.2d 653, n. w. h. However, we have found no Texas authority which gives 'direct loss' the restricted meaning as contende......
-
Sullivan v. The Standard Fire Insurance Company, No. 515, 2007 (Del. 2/11/2008), 515, 2007.
...at *3 (emphasis added) (citing Sorrentino v. Allcity Ins. Co., 229 A.D.2d 481 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996); The Travelers' Indem. Co. v. L. Jarrett, 369 S.W.2d 653 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1963); Yunker v. Republic-Franklin Ins. Co., 442 N.E.2d 108 (Ohio App. Ct. 1982)); see also COUCH ON INSURANCE 3D ......