Hansen & Rowland, Inc. v. C. F. Lytle Co.

Appellant urges that this court erred (1) as to the facts regarding the premium base, and (2) in failing to hold appellant entitled to interest under the doctrine of res judicata.

Apparently the facts concerning which we allegedly erred are comprised in the testimony of the Government engineer that he had no way of determining exactly the payroll amounts in question. This fact we recognized in our opinion. From this fact appellant concludes that it was established that remuneration of the insured’s employees were “not available to the company” (insurer), hence that the policy dictated…