DONALD W. CUMBEST AND AMERICAN NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,
v.
PHOENIX OF HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for the plaintiff.
Plaintiff sued his insurance company for windstorm damage to his house and contents during Hurricane Camille. The jury returned a verdict for the plai…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Claims cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Donald W. Cumbest sued appellant Phoenix of Hartford Insurance Company on an insurance policy, alleging destruction of his house by windstorm during Hurricane Camille on August 17, 1969. The coverage of the house by the policy was $60,000 and the coverage of the contents was $16,000. The trial resulted in a jury verdict for appellee Cumbest in the amount of $70,000.
As the appellants did in Home Insurance Co., New York v. Sherrill, 5 Cir., 1949, 174 F. 2d 945, and in Royal Insurance Co., Ltd., v. Martinolich, 5 Cir., 1950, 179 F. 2d 704, this appellant comes to this court complaining solely of the insufficiency of the evidence to support a verdict and judgment that plaintiff was entitled to recover under the policy.
Here, as there, appellant urges that the testimony of the plaintiff and his witnesses that - before any water damage took effect, the damage to the full amount insured had already been done by the wind, is not only refuted by all other testimony, but made incredible by the undisputed facts so that it cannot support the verdict. Here, as there, after a perusal of the evidence, we hold that the question upon the record was a question of fact for the jury. See Firemen’s Insurance Co. of Newark, N. J. v. Schulte (Supreme Ct. Miss., 1967), 200 So. 2d 440.
The judgment is affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Home Ins. Co. v. Sherrill, 174 F.2d 945 (5th Cir. 1949)
- Royal Ins. Co. v. Martinolich, 179 F.2d 704 (5th Cir. 1950)