167 Mo. App. 566 | Mo. Ct. App. | 1912
Plaintiff was the owner of property upon which and within which it manufactured riekers. It took out a fire insurance policy, and there
The question which the record presents for decision is whether the property burned was covered by the insurance. The descriptive clauses of the policy read as follows:
“$700 — On one-story frame building, with shingle roof and its additions, adjoining and communicating, including foundations, occupied as a factory for the manufacturing of rickers, situated on the east side of Grant street, lots Nos. 1 and 2, block 12, in Green City, State of Missouri.
$600 — On furniture and fixtures contained therein, including iron safe.
$400 — On their stock of merchandise, consisting principally of lumber, bolts, castings, rope and other articles for the manufacturing of rickers, and other merchandise kept for sale not more hazardous, all only while contained in the building and its additions above described.”
The factory consisted of the main building and-three other structures. One 35 by 60 feet, was known as the lumber shed, paint shop and storage room, which was 13 feet distant from the main building. Another, 12 by 14 feet, was a coal house, and some castings were kept there; and it was fifteen feet from the main building. The third was a store and work house and was about 28 feet from the main building. The last mentioned was an old house and had once been a residence. All were parts of an entire plant.
These three detached buildings were destroyed by fire and plaintiff claims they are “additions, adjoining and communicating” with the “one-story frame building” as set forth in the' policy. Defendant insists they are not. ‘ *
A legal rule constantly applied by appellate courts leaves defendant at a disadvantage. That is,
Defendant asserts that the face of the policy as applied to the property, excludes the buildings from the description. It is true there was not' a certain character of connection between the buildings in controversy and the main building. There were no pipes, beltings, covered ways, etc. But the foregoing descriptive terms of the policy did not require any. Nor was there any especial door opening out of the main building leading specially to the other buildings; though the principal door of the main building opened within about thirteen feet of the lumber and paint room, and a cinder path led from one to the other.
' But the policy did not require any particular mode of getting from one to the other. All the policy required was that the additions to the main building should be “adjoining (to it) and communicating” with i't. Defendant has affirmed in its policy, an instrument written and'phrased by it, in its own chosen language, that there were additions adjoining the main building and communicating therewith; that they were situated on certain lots and that they were occupied as a richer factory. If the buildings in controversy are not the ones, where are they?
' It appeared that there was once an improvement to this main building and as the case involves the construction of phrases and the meaning of words, counsel have been cautious in the use of them. Defendant calls it an “addition” and thereby insists it has found application for the words it wrote in the policy. Plaintiff calls it an “enlargement” and refuses to concede that it was an addition; and if it was, it says it still would not suffice, for thé word used in the policy was the plural, “additions.” 'However, seemingly in defer
In order to brace its side óf the case plaintiff invoked another well recognized rule for the interpretation of contracts, viz. the construction the parties themselves placed upon it. Tetley v. McElinurry, 201 Mo. 382, 394; Laclede Const. Co. v. Moss Tie Co., 185 Mo. l. c. 73; Sedalia Brewing Co. v, Sedalia Water Works Co., 34 Mo. App. 49. To show this, testimony was introduced that defendant’s agent considered the burned buildings were included in the policy; the report of the fire made to defendant clearly shows this. And so other acts on defendant’s part tended to show the same construction. Among others, defendant marked on this policy, under the head of ‘ ‘ other insurance,” that there was $2000 other insurance on contents of the lumber shed; thus manifesting fully that it
• The foregoing considerations relieve the case from application and control of authorities cited by defendant. It is not to be denied that an addition to a building may commonly mean something attached thereto, but no one should say that such word necessarily means that. It often is plainly seen to have a broader meaning. A clearly appearing intention will give it a broader meaning. Circumstances and conditions, as, for instance, such as shown in this case, will influence the interpretation. So we repeat that the expression: “ One-storv frame building, and its additions adjoining and communicating,” does not always mean structures physically attached to, or otherwise connected with the building by machinery, or specific pass-ways. That cannot be said as a matter of law. Tate v. Insurance Co., 133 Mo. App. 584; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Martin, 16 So. 417; Marsh v. Concord Mut. Ins. Co., 71 N. H. 253; Montana Stables v. Union Assur. Soc., 53 Wash. 274; Shepard v. Germania Ins. Co., 165 Mich. 172; Guthrie Laundry Co. v. Ins. Co., 17 Ob. 571. These cases do not involve the exact situation of buildings found in this case, but we think they illustrate the views we have stated.
We think the judgment should be affirmed.