Wilson v. National Auto. & Cas. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 59-F-2,59-F-2 |
| Citation | 22 Ill.App.2d 34,159 N.E.2d 504 |
| Parties | Victor G. WILSON and Violet D. Wilson, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NATIONAL AUTOMOBILE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant- Appellant. |
| Court | United States Appellate Court of Illinois |
Baker, Kagy & Wagner, East St. Louis, John M. Ferguson, John D. Bauman, East St. Louis, of counsel, for appellant.
Morris B. Chapman and Horace L. Calvo, Granite City, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the City Court of Granite City entered upon a verdict in the amount of $2,000, returned by a jury in an action to recover on an insurance policy insuring plaintiffs, Victor G. Wilson and Violet D. Wilson's building against collapse. The collapse of the building was caused when a portion of the basement dwelling collapsed following an unusual and excessive amount of rainfall on June 14, 1957.
The only issue before the Court is to determine whether or not 'surface water' resulting from severe rainfall is within the meaning of the words, 'flood, inundation, or high water.' The insurance policy expressly excluded damage resulting from flood, inundation, or high water, from the coverage of the policy. The defendant's contention on appeal is that the Court, as a matter of law, should have found that standing water resulting from the deluge on June 14, 1957, came within the exclusion clause of the insurance policy, and that the cause should not have been submitted to the jury. The plaintiffs on appeal contend that the term 'surface water' as applied to insurance policies has been judicially defined and is not within the exceptions in the exclusion clause.
The general rule of construction applicable to determination of coverage of insurance policies is that such policies be construed liberally in favor of the insured to the end that the insured is not deprived of insurance for which he had paid, except where the policy clearly, definitely, and explicitly requires it (Schmidt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 376 Ill. 183, 33 N.E.2d 485, 136 A.L.R. 1036). Courts have also determined that where an insurer relies upon certain exclusions as a defense, the insurer has the burden of showing that the loss claimed is within such exceptions (Goldfarb v. Maryland Casualty Co., 311 App. 568, 37 N.E.2d 376). It is pointed out that the term 'surface water' has been considered and determined to be something wholly distinct from the term 'flood' (Goldfarb v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra). It is also pointed out that the normal dictionary definition of 'inundation' refers to an overflow of waters coming out of their bed.
In a case construed in another jurisdiction (Poole v. Sun Underwriters Insurance Co., 65 S.D. 422, 274 N.W. 658, 659), a water loss to a motor vehicle was being...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Littrall v. Indemnity Insurance Co. of North America
...clause the burden is upon the Insurer to show that the loss claimed is within the exclusion. Wilson v. National Automobile and Cas. Ins. Co., 1959, 22 Ill.App.2d 34, 159 N.E.2d 504; Caster v. Motor Ins. Corp., 1961, 28 Ill. App.2d 363, 171 N.E.2d The aircraft policy, based upon the proof, d......
-
Wallis v. Country Mut. Ins. Co.
...Life Insurance Co., 209 Ill.App.3d 144, 148, 154 Ill.Dec. 9, 568 N.E.2d 9 (1990); see also Wilson v. National Automobile & Casualty Insurance Co., 22 Ill.App.2d 34, 37, 159 N.E.2d 504 (1959). If the insurer meets this burden through the presentation of undisputed facts, summary judgment is ......
-
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Schmitt
...Blue Cross Association, 50 Ill.App.3d 709, 717, 8 Ill.Dec. 400, 365 N.E.2d 638, 643 (1977); Wilson v. National Automobile & Casualty Insurance Co., 22 Ill.App.2d 34, 37, 159 N.E.2d 504, 505 (1959). At issue here is whether a sister-in-law is a member of the family of the insured as that phr......
-
Am. States Ins. Co. v. Byerly Aviation, Inc.
...which he has paid a premium, unless the policy clearly, definitely, and explicitly requires it. Wilson v. National Automobile and Casualty Ins. Co., 22 Ill. App.2d 34, 159 N.E.2d 504 (1959). Forfeitures of insurance contracts are not favored in the law, and unless the right to such forfeitu......