STEINBACH
v.
INSURANCE COMPANY
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.
Steinbach sued an insurance company to recover on a fire insurance policy that did not explicitly cover fireworks, arguing that fireworks fell within the general description of "other articles in his line of business." The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment, holding that the policy's explicit requirement that fireworks be specially written into the policy to be covered meant they were not included under the general terms, particularly since fireworks were designated as specially hazardous goods requiring an additional premium.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
The CHIEF JUSTICE delivered the opinion of the court.
The only question in this case arises upon the construction of the policy sued upon.
It contained a clause providing that fireworks, among other things, should be specially written in the policy. Otherwise they were not to be covered by the insurance. It is not pretended that fireworks are included under the name of fire-crackers. But the plaintiff contends that they are included in the description of “other articles in his line of business.” The answer to this is, that the policy itself requires that fireworks shall be specially written in it. They are among the goods described as specially hazardous, and add 50 cents on the $100 to the ordinary rate of insurance.
It is impossible to think they are described by the general terms used in the policy. The insurance was at the ordinary rates. There can be no doubt that the evidence was properly rejected; and the judgment of the Circuit Court must, therefore, be
Affirmed.