Bowman v. Pacific Insurance
Supreme Court of Missouri
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action on a policy of insurance against fire. Said policy contained the following clauses: “ If there shall be kept or stored therein any of the articles, goods or merchandise in the same terms and conditions denominated ‘ hazardous,’ or 1 extra hazardous,’ or included in the memorandum of ‘ special’ rates, except as herein specially provided for, or hereafter agreed to by this corporation in writing, to be added to or…
Read the full summary
Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas. This was an action on a policy of insurance against fire. Said policy contained the following clauses: “ If there shall be kept or stored therein any of the articles, goods or merchandise in the same terms and conditions denominated ‘ hazardous,’ or 1 extra hazardous,’ or included in the memorandum of ‘ special’ rates, except as herein specially provided for, or hereafter agreed to by this corporation in writing, to be added to or endorsed upon this policy, then and from thenceforth so long as the same shall be so appropriated, applied or used, these…
1Opinion of the CourtNapton, Judge
The construction given to the policy sued on was, in our opinion, erroneous.- The first clause of the policy referred to creates a forfeiture in the event that any of the articles enumerated in the memorandum of special rates is kept in the house insured, except where a special provision is made on the subject in the policy, or where such special provision is subsequently agreed to by the parties, reduced to writing and endorsed on the policy. A special provision in relation to gunpowder is found in the body of the policy, and that provision is totally inconsistent with the construction of…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Burkhard v. Travellers' Insurance Co. of HartfordSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1883