Watkins v. Motors Ins. Corp., 22086
| Decision Date | 04 October 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 22086,22086 |
| Citation | 271 S.W.2d 584 |
| Parties | Earl A. WATKINS, Jr., Respondent, v. MOTORS INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Vance Julian, Clinton, for appellant.
Delton L. Houtchens, Clinton, for respondent.
Plaintiff brought suit against defendant on an automobile fire insurance policy for damage sustained as the result of a fire occurring in and on the motor, body and wiring of plaintiff's automobile. The trial to a jury resulted in a verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $413.50, and defendant appealed.
It is admitted that the policy was in force; and that plaintiff's automobile sustained some damage as the result of a fire. The real controverted issue was the amount of the damage directly resulting from the fire. More than ten days before trial, defendant tendered plaintiff the sum of $75 for damages plus accrued costs, and deposited the same with the clerk of the court. The tender was rejected.
Plaintiff lived in Clinton, Missouri, and in September, 1952, purchased a new Buick automobile from a dealer in that city, and on May 30, 1953, in the early evening, drove to Windsor, a distance of about 20 miles. After visiting with some friends, he and some guests prepared to return to Clinton. He started the motor, after the third or fourth attempt, and heard a noise under the hood but paid no attention to it at the moment, until someone told him his car was on fire. He raised the hood and found a mass of flames covering the motor. With the aid of bystanders, the fire was soon extinguished. Without further examination of the car, plaintiff started the motor, which 'ran as good as ever'. He drove back to Clinton and parked for the night in front of his drug store. The next morning he went to his car and noticed 'a puddle of something' on the ground beneath the motor and put his finger in this material and smelled it, and determined that it was not gasoline; he then drove to the golf course about a mile from Clinton and returned later. The following morning he started to drive to Warrensburg, and when two or three miles from Clinton he heard a noise in the motor, and for the first time noticed that the oil gauge registered 'zero'. He drove back to Clinton, where it was found that the motor was without oil, and he took it to the Buick dealer and reported the fire. In due time, an adjuster for the defendant came and examined the car and estimated the cost of repairs at $30, but plaintiff demanded a new motor, which was declined. Plaintiff took the car to the Detweiler Garage, where repairs were made. The total repair and parts bill was $121.87. At this point, the parties disagree as to whether all the damage found by the mechanic was directly due to the fire, as provided by the policy, or whether some of the damage was due to the failure of the plaintiff to properly protect the automobile after the fire. The policy provides: . The issue of whether plaintiff properly protected the car after the fire was submitted to the jury by defendant's instruction 3.
However, defendant contends that its instruction 'B', offered at the close of all the evidence, should have been given. This instruction told the jury that its verdict must be for plaintiff for $75 damages and $47.50 court costs. The instruction was offered on the theory that, under the evidence, plaintiff's damage resulting directly from the fire was limited to certain repairs totaling $75. We will review the evidence concerning this issue.
Plaintiff's witness, Salmon, testified that he was present at the time of the fire; that when Watkins attempted to start the motor, Some man came across the street with a fire extinguisher and assisted in putting out the flames, but the material in the fire extinguisher gave out and a 'tote sack' was used to complete the extinguishment of the flames. He noticed 'around the valve covering, there was a blaze coming out there, where you put in the oil. I just took the sack and smothered out what blaze there was coming out around there. * * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mo.
...like kind and quality, with deduction for depreciation,' not to replace every damaged part with a new part [cf. Watkins v. Motors Insurance Corp., Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 584, 587(3)] as was contemplated by the repair estimates of plaintiff's witnesses, none of whom, however, said that such rep......
-
Boren v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York
...relies upon statements in the case of Boecker v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., Mo.App., 281 S.W.2d 561, and Watkins v. Motors Insurance Corporation, Mo.App., 271 S.W.2d 584. But neither of these cases dealt with the statute here under consideration, and in neither case was there any proof ......