Hapeman v. Citizens' Mutual Fire-Insurance
Michigan Supreme Court
Error to Allegan; Padgham, J. Assumpsit by George Hapeman against the Citizens’ Mutual Fire-Insurance Company of Kent, Allegan, and Ottawa Counties on a policy of insurance. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.
Read the full summary
Error to Allegan; Padgham, J. Assumpsit by George Hapeman against the Citizens’ Mutual Fire-Insurance Company of Kent, Allegan, and Ottawa Counties on a policy of insurance. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error. Plaintiff, a farmer, secured a policy of insurance in the defendant company, which contained the following provision : ‘ ‘ Live stock, carriages, harnesses, and farm implements, $200. Stock insured against lightning anywhere in Kent, Allegan, and Ottawa counties. Situated in Allegan county, Michigan, on section 5, in the township of Heath.” Plaintiff had driven away…
1Opinion of the CourtGrant, J.
(after stating the facts). 1. It is first-urged that the insurance upon the property in question did not extend beyond the farm. Counsel for defendant say:
“It [the policy] does not describe any one article, animate or inanimate, that from the description could be-identified, other than by its location upon plaintiff’s farm.”
We find no reason in this contention. The term “livestock” includes horses, which are found on every farm in Michigan. To sustain defendant’s contention would result in negativing that provision of the policy expressly insuring such stock against lightning anywhere in…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Cummings v. Pennsylvania Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1912
- Tracy v. Palmentto Fire Ins. Co.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1928
- Granier v. ChagnonMontana Supreme Court · 1949
- Fidelity Phenix Fire Insurance v. AndersonIndiana Court of Appeals · 1921
- Thorp v. Ætna InsuranceSupreme Court of New Hampshire · 1909