HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
J. M. HOLLIS, DEFENDANT IN ERROR
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.
Hartford Fire Insurance Company appealed a judgment for the insured after its prior reversal on a writ of error. The Florida Supreme Court held that the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to pleas that had been previously held good on demurrer, and that fire insurance policies covering multiple classes of property are severable unless the parties intended otherwise.
The court held that when a demurrer to pleas is held good on appeal, the matter becomes res adjudicata and the trial court is bound by that determination; therefore, the trial court erred in sustaining a demurrer to the first, second, third, and fifth pleas. Additionally, absent misrepresentation or fraud, a fire insurance policy covering different classes of property, each separately valued and insured for a distinct amount, is severable, and a breach affecting only one class does not invalidate the policy as to other classes unless the parties intended otherwise.
“When a demurrer to pleas is held bad on appeal the matter is res adjudicata and the trial court is bound thereby.”
Establishes the binding effect of prior appellate rulings on demurrers, preventing the trial court from reconsidering the same issue.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHartford Fire Insurance Company issued a fire insurance policy covering $1,000 on stock of merchandise and $250 on a building, with a gross premium of…
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 Law Of The Case Doctrine cases and more on FLexlaw
Whitfield, C. J.
A former judgment for the insured for the loss by fire of a house and a stock of goods was reversed in Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hollis, 58 Fla. 268, 50 South. Rep. 985. Another judgment was obtained and the insurer again took writ of error. On the former writ of error the first, second, third and fifth pleas set out in the opinion were held to be good as against the demurrer there interposed. The court said the first, second and third pleas are not “open to attack by the demurrer as framed.” Of the fifth plea it was said “the plea is not so faulty as to wholly fail to set up a defense.” This is the law of the case as to these pleas.
In the former opinion, when referring to other assignments of error, it is said: “Having discovered reversible errors committed in the ruling upon the demurrer to pleas, which necessitates the remanding of the case, when the pleadings doubtless will be recast or amended, whereby different issues may be framed, under which other and different evidence may be adduced, it is not likely that the questions presented by these assignments will arise on another trial.” This statement in the opinion gave no permission to present other grounds of demurrer to the pleas held to be good on demurrer, but contemplated pleadings raising questions of fact.
When a demurrer to pleas is held bad on appeal the matter is res adjudicata and the trial court is bound thereby. The statute requiring courts to permit amendments to pleadings does not contemplate amendments to the grounds of a demurrer to pleas where the pleas have been held to be good on the demurrer on appeal and the question is res adjudicata.
In view of the holding in the former opinion, it was error to sustain a demurrer to the first, second, third and fifth pleas as was done at the last trial. This error deprived the defendant of a substantial right.
While there is a diversity of judicial opinion as to the divisibility of policies of insurance, the doctrine seems to be that in the absence of misrepresentations-and fraud where a fire insurance policy covers different classes of property, each of which is separately valued and is insured for a distinct amount, the contract is severable, and a breach of the contract of insurance that relates to and directly affects only one of the classes of the property insured, does not invalidate the policy as to the other class of property, unless it appears that such was the intention of the parties; and an intent that the policy shall be indivisible is not shown by the facts that the premium for all the classes of property insured is payable or paid in gross, and the policy provides that the entire policy shall be void if the contract is violated in any one of several stated particulars by the insured. See Mitchell v. Mississippi Home Ins. Co., 72 Miss. 53, 18 South. Rep. 86, 48 Am. St. Rep. 535; Trabue v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 121 Mo. 75, 25 S. W. Rep. 848, 23 L. R. A. 719; Wright v. Fire Ins. Co., 12 Mont. 474, 31 Pac. Rep. 87, 19 L. R. A. 211; Arkansas Ins. Co. v. Cox, 21 Okla. 873, 98 Pac. Rep. 552, 20 L. R. A. (N. S.) 775; Miller v. Delaware Ins. Co. of Philadelphia, 14 Okla. 81, 75 Pac. Rep. 1121, 65 L. R. A. 173, 2 Ann. Cas. 20; Danley v. Glens Falls Ins. Co., 184 N. Y. 107, 76 N. E. Rep. 914, 6 Ann. Cas. 81.
The policy in this case covered $1,000.00 on stock of merchandise in a certain described building; and $250.00 on the building. The premium paid was $41.25, in gross.
As there is nothing to indicate that the parties really intended the policy to be indivisible, and as no misrepresentation or fraud appears, the pleas may each be fairly regarded as a defense to a severable part of the plaintiff’s claim for indemnity, and they together constitute a defense to the entire cause of action.
There was no error in refusing the peremptory charge for the defendant, as the only pleas on which the case was tried related to insurance on the stock of goods, whereas the declaration on the insurance policy covered the building and the stock of goods. The books kept under the Iron Safe Clause and explanations of them were put in evidence without objection. .
As the court erred in sustaining the demurrer to the pleas, the judgment is reversed.
Taylor, Shackleford, Cockrell and Hocker, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Flores v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 So. 2d 740 (Fla. 2002)…orily mandated, such as provisions in fire, life, and property insurance policies, may not necessarily be illuminating in guiding our analysis. The Second District in this case cited two cases from this Court, Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hollis, 64 Fla. 89, 59 So. 785 (1912) (Hollis II), and National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. Cubberly, 68 Fla. 253, 67 So. 133 (1914), for the “rule that an insurance policy may be severable but not when there are misrepresentations and fraud.” Flores, 772 So. 2d at 6-…1 / 2
-
Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 74 Fla. 130 (Fla. 1917)…on the two policies. The declaration, as well as the attached policies, shows that the insurance was upon both real and personal property. The defendant rightly says that the policies may be divisible and cites Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hollis, 64 Fla. 89, 59 South. Rep. 785. The only other [*172] authorities cited by the defendant in support of this assignment are Georgia Home Insurance Co. v. Hoskins, 71 Fla. 282, 71 South. Rep. 285, and Section 1437 of the General Statutes of 1906, Compiled Laws o…
-
Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Cubberly, 68 Fla. 253 (Fla. 1914)…aintiff in error frankly admitting in its brief that, if we should hold that such policy is divisible, then the ruling of the trial court was correct. We had occasion to consider this question to some extent in Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hollis, 64 Fla. 89, 59 South. Rep. 785, wherein we held, “In the absence of misrepresentations and fraud where a fire insurance policy covers different classes of property, each of which is separately valued and is insured for a distinct amount, the contract is severa…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Hollis, 58 Fla. 268 (Fla. 1909)