Wertheimer-Swarts Shoe Co. v. United States Casualty Co.
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jas. E. Withrow, Judge. (1) The policy covers all damages caused by any accidental discharge of water, however caused, from the sprinkler system, not coming within the exceptions of clause 9 of said policy, upon the well-known maxim that “an exception expressly carved out of a general clause, leaves all other cases within the scope of the clause.”
Read the full summary
Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — Hon. Jas. E. Withrow, Judge. (1) The policy covers all damages caused by any accidental discharge of water, however caused, from the sprinkler system, not coming within the exceptions of clause 9 of said policy, upon the well-known maxim that “an exception expressly carved out of a general clause, leaves all other cases within the scope of the clause.” Special provisions or exceptions, limiting the operation of a contract of insurance, must be plain, specific and unambiguous. Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 10 Pet. 517; Louisville Underwriters v. Durland, 123…
1Opinion of the CourtValliant, J.
This is a suit on a policy insuring against the accidental discharge of an automatic sprinkling apparatus designed as a fire extinguisher, erected in plaintiff’s establishment.
The terms of the policy covered loss or damage to the limit of $7,500 to property in plaintiff’s shoe factory, caused “by the accidental discharge or leakage of water from the automatic sprinkler system” in plaintiff’s place of business.
The petition set out the terms of the policy, and averred that plaintiff’s goods were damaged to the amount named by the accidental discharge of the apparatus, etc.
The answer admitted…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- American Surety Company v. PaulySupreme Court of the United States · 1898
- The Columbia Insurance Company of Alexandria, in Error v. Joseph W. Lawrence, Who Survived Thomas PoindexterSupreme Court of the United States · 1836
- Guarantee Co. of North America v. Mechanics' Sav. Bank & Trust Co.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1896
- Feibelman v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1895
- Mickey v. Burlington Ins.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1872
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Kansas City Stock Yards Co. v. A. Reich & SonsSupreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- Monsanto Chemical Co. v. American Bitumuls Co.Supreme Court of Missouri · 1952
- Gillen v. BayfieldSupreme Court of Missouri · 1932
- John Church Co. v. Ætna Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1913
- Malin v. Mercantile Town Mutual InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1904
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.