Tumblin v. American Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 08 May 1962 |
| Citation | 182 N.E.2d 306,344 Mass. 318 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | John TUMBLIN v. The AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Elihu Pearlman, Boston, for plaintiff.
Charles S. Walkup, Jr., Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.
The plaintiff had a finding in the District Court for the loss by theft of electrical equipment, tools, and stock stored in a utility trailer. The policy on which the action was brought was issued by the defendant to cover loss of such property, so located, by fire and certain other risks. On October 8, 1959, two indorsements were added reading, (1) 'This policy is extended to cover against the peril of theft, it being agreed, however, that from the adjusted amount of each loss caused by this peril, the sum of $25.00 shall be deducted.' (2) A later paragraph of the policy provided: 'This policy does not insure * * * c. while the property insured hereunder is located: (a) in or on the premises of the insured, or (b) in any garage or other building where any vehicle herein described is usually kept.'
There was evidence, inter alia, as follows: the plaintiff owned premises at 302 Main Street, Everett, with a rear door which gave access to a yard behind his premises which he did not own; in 1960 he was in the course of moving to that location from his former place of business; the trailer had been parked on the unowned land near the rear door for two weeks prior to April 11, 1960; it was completely locked; on April 11, 1960, the plaintiff noticed that the trailer was missing and reported the loss; he had six employees all of whom had keys that could 'open the doors into the compartments where his tools and supplies were kept'; the owner of the yard where the trailer had been parked had never given the plaintiff permission to park his trailer there but did not object to his doing so. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co.
...of the insurance policy. See Markline Co. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 384 Mass. 139, 140, 424 N.E.2d 464 (1981); Tumblin v. American Ins. Co., 344 Mass. 318, 320, 182 N.E.2d 306 (1962). Once the insured does this, the burden then shifts to the insurer to show that a separate exclusion to coverag......
-
Magoun v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...295 S.W.2d 819. Cf. Sherman v. Employers' Liab. Assur. Corp. Ltd., 343 Mass. 354, 356-357, 178 N.E.2d 864; Tumblin v. American Ins. Co., 344 Mass. 318, 319-320, 182 N.E.2d 306; Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Pacific Indem. Co., 167 Cal.App.2d 369, 375-376, 334 P.2d 658.5 See Schmidt v. Na......
-
Highlands Ins. Co. v. Aerovox Inc.
...bears the initial burden of "prov[ing] that the loss [is] within the description of the risks covered." Tumblin v. American Ins. Co., 344 Mass. 318, 320, 182 N.E.2d 306 (1962). Murray v. Continental Ins. Co., 313 Mass. 557, 563, 48 N.E.2d 145 (1943), expresses the rule as to "The general ru......
-
Boazova v. Safety Ins. Co..
...Ins. Co., 394 Mass. 450, 453, 476 N.E.2d 200 (1985). The insured bears the burden of establishing coverage. Tumblin v. American Ins. Co., 344 Mass. 318, 320, 182 N.E.2d 306 (1962). The interpretation of an exclusion in an insurance contract also presents a question of law, see Fuller v. Fir......