BOSTON OLD COLONY INS. CO.
v.
FIRST STATE BANK OF LANTANA, ET AL.
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.
Boston Old Colony Insurance Company filed an interpleader action to determine the value of jewelry stolen from a safe-deposit box. The court admitted the jewelry owner's testimony regarding value despite the remoteness of the purchase dates, but with limitations due to the specialized nature of jewelry valuation.
An owner of personal property is presumed to have sufficient familiarity with it to testify as to its value, and such testimony is admissible even when the purchase date is remote. However, because jewelry is specialized in nature, the owner's testimony cannot be considered as fully as that of an expert witness.
[1] The owner of personal property is generally presumed to have sufficient familiarity with it to testify as to its value.
[2] An owner's testimony regarding the value of property, even if purchased remotely, may be admissible if relevant to market value.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Ordinarily the owner of personal property is presumed to have such familiarity with it as to know pretty nearly, if not actually, what it is worth.”
Establishes the foundational presumption allowing owners to testify to value of their property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnne Francis owned jewelry kept in a safe-deposit box at First National Bank of Lantana. The bank was robbed and the jewelry stolen. Francis received …
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 Owner'S Testimony On Property Value cases and more on FLexlaw
The defendant Anne Francis was the owner of some jewelry kept in a safe-deposit box at the First National Bank of Lantana. This bank was robbed and the jewelry stolen. An interpleader action was filed by the Boston Old Colony Insurance Company, and the question of the value of the jewelry is before the court.
The defendant Anne Francis has testified that the five items of jewelry were received as gifts in 1927, 1928 and 1943. She has offered her opinion as to the items’ values, basing her opinion on consultations with a jeweler (since deceased), on her experience as a frequent owner of fine jewelry over the years, and on the fact that she is the owner of the jewelry in question. Adverse defendants Sun Insurance Company and Fireman’s Fund object to her testimony, citing Florida Bar CLE Publication on Damages, 5.9 —
“The owner of property which he has recently purchased, who is familar with its cost price, may testify as to its value, since the cost of a thing is some evidence of its market value . . . But the evidence has to be specific as to time and place of purchase.”
Jacksonville, T. and K. W. Ry. Co. v. Prior, 15 So. 60, and Atlantic Coastline R. Co. v. Sandline, 78 So. 667, and cases cited therein, are concerned with conditions under which as owner may testify concerning the cost of his property; they do not prohibit an owner of remotely purchased property from testifying as to its value. The admissibility of the owner’s testimony concerning cost is governed by one simple guideline — relevance to value. The court in Jacksonville, supra, stated —
“There may be cases where an investigation into the cost of personal property destroyed may be proper, but. . . its cost to the owner, without connecting such cost in
*88some way with the market value, will not be proper . . . [I]t ought to appear that the cost was necessary in some way to fix the market value of the property when destroyed ...”
See, also, Atlantic Coastline, supra, p. 669.
The issue here then is whether an owner may testify as to value, even though the date of purchase is remote and the owner’s knowledge of the original purchase price is scant. Ordinarily the owner of personal property is presumed to have such familiarity with it as to know pretty nearly, if not actually, what it is worth. Atlantic Coastline, supra, p. 668. Mrs. Francis’ testimony, therefore, is admissible, but, because of the nature of jewelry, her testimony cannot be considered as fully as that of an expert.
It is thereupon found and ordered that the plaintiff shall recover the sum of $3,200 in this action.