Zepponi v. Home Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 March 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 42896,42896 |
| Citation | 248 Miss. 828,161 So.2d 524 |
| Parties | Alex ZEPPONI v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
248 Miss. 829] Horace L. Merideth, Jr., Greenville, for appellant.
Keady, Campbell & DeLong, Greenville, for appellee.
Alex Zepponi, Insured, sued Home Insurance Company, Insurer, on a fire insurance policy. The trial court directed a verdict for Insurer. Insured appeals.
Insurer issued to Insured a standard fire insurance policy which afforded fire and extended coverage insurance on farm property. The policy was dated January 24, 1956, and expired January 24, 1961. It was a renewal policy. The schedule of property covered embraced twenty-six buildings, including a barn which was insured for $1,000. About December 15, 1960, Insured went by the office of Insurer's agent in Leland and inquired about the cost of renewing his insurance. Insured then went to the office of the agent of the Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company in Greenville where he learned that the premium would be about $200 less than that charged by Insurer. Insured applied for and was issued a policy by the Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company ocvering the same property insured under the policy issued by Insurer. Insured knew that the policy issued in 1956 by Insurer was about to expire and it was his purpose to change from one insurance company to the other because of the difference of $200 in premium. Insured did not notify Insurer or its agent that additional insurance had been issued to him on the property covered by Insurer's policy. No question of waiver is involved.
On January 4, 1961, after the new policy had been issued by Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company and before the expiration date of Insurer's policy, the barn insured under both policies burned. Insured collected the amount of $1,000 from the Mississippi Farm Bureau Insurance Company.
The policy in question containted the following clauses with reference to other insurance: 'Other insurance may be prohibited or the amount of insurance may be limited by endorsement attached hereto.'
The endorsement referred to reads as follows: 'Other insurance is hereby prohibited unless the total insurance, including this policy, is listed in the following spaces.' (The spaces were all left blank.)
The overall question for decision is whether the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict. There are three precise points of inquiry.
(1) Does the policy prohibit after acquired other insurance?
Insurer contends that since the other insurance was not acquired until after the issuance of Insurer's policy there was no violation of the other insurance clause. The other insurance clause does not refer specifically to after acquired insurance. The clause prohibiting other insurance is designed to prevent fraud or carelessness resulting from over-insurance. It is a reasonable and valid provision and a violation will avoid the policy. 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, Sec. 954. (We do not intend to impute bad faith, for there is no hint of fraud or bad faith in the case at bar.) A statement of the reason for the clause is to answer the question whether it prohibits other insurance after the policy has been issued. The clause would not serve its purpose if other insurance could be acquired thereafter. This Court has foreclosed the question adversely to appellant. In American Insurance Co. v. Prine, 244 Miss. 69, 140 So.2d 284, the policy sued on was issued March 1, 1960. It prohibited other insurance but did not specifically refer to insurance thereafter acquired. Other insurance was acquired October 1, 1960. This Court held the policy void because of the additional insurance.
(2) In order for violation of other insurance clause to constitute a defense is it necessary for the policy to expressly provide that violation will void policy?
In Prine and in other cases the policy contained the provision that the Insurer shall not be liable for loss while the Insured shall have any other insurance prohibited by the policy. Appellant argues that such provision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Highlands Ins. Co. v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...in the Allstate renewal policy. An insured who violates this clause forfeits his insurance coverage. See Zepponi v. Home Ins. Co., 248 Miss. 828, 833, 161 So.2d 524, 526 (1964). However, "(c)ourts frown on forfeitures and lean toward waiver in insurance cases.... Forfeitures are not favored......
-
G&B Invs., Inc. v. Henderson (In re Evans)
...Soc'y of U.S., 850 So.2d 78, 83 (Miss.2003); Cherry v. Anthony, Gibbs, Sage, 501 So.2d 416, 419 (Miss.1987); Zepponi v. Home Ins. Co., 248 Miss. 828, 161 So.2d 524 (1964)). “The ‘duty-to-read’ and the ‘imputed-knowledge’ doctrines are firmly rooted in Mississippi precedent.” Mladineo, 52 So......
-
American Income Life Ins. Co. v. Hollins, No. 1999-CA-00528-SCT.
...of law. Id. (citing Atlas Roofing Mfg. Co. v. Robinson & Julienne, Inc. 279 So.2d 625, 629 (Miss.1973); Zepponi v. Home Ins. Co., 248 Miss. 828, 833-34, 161 So.2d 524, 526 (1964)). I do not agree with the majority's distinction between "knowledge of the contract terms" and "bound by contrac......
-
Mladineo v. Schmidt
...the subject insurance policy], knowledge of its contents would be imputed to them as a matter of law.");Zepponi v. Home Ins. Co., 248 Miss. 828, 833-34, 161 So.2d 524 (Miss.1964) (holding as a matter of law that where the insured's mortgagee required insurance and had possession of the subj......