St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Wilburn

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Wilburn

1924 OK 619, 229 P. 410, 103 Okla. 132, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 263

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedJune 10, 1924

Docket13636

StatusPublished

This text of 1924 OK 619 (St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Wilburn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. v. Wilburn, 1924 OK 619, 229 P. 410, 103 Okla. 132, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 263 (Okla. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C-

The plaintiff commenced his action against the defendant, in which he alleged that the defendant issued its fire insurance policy on a dwelling house owned by the plaintiff. The policy was alleged to have been issued on October 1, 1919, to run for a period of three years from date. The building was *133 totally destroyed by fire and the company failed to pay the loss. In the trial of this cause, judgment went for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed the cause to this court for review. The main contentions for reversal are: (1) The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence; and (2) contrary to the law. The main ground for controversy arises out of the alleged issuance of the policy by the defendant and the denial of execution by the defendant, and the further claim of the plaintiff that the agent of the defendant lost the policy after its issuance, and failed to deliver the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that he made inquiry of the agent about the policy and was advised by the agent that he had issued the same, and that it was a binding obligation on the company. It appears that a mortgagee of the insured who was concerned in the property being insured went with the insured to see the agent. Both parties testified that the agent went to his records and after some search advised them that the policy had been issued and was a binding obligation on the eom,pany. The parties further testified that the agent advised them the company could furnish a copy of the policy at any time it was desired. The plaintiff made writte¡n demand as is provided by the statute upon the defendant to be furnished the original policy. The request and failure of the company to furnish the policy rendered the foregoing proof competent as to its execution and loss. The testimony of the plaintiff was sufficient to raise an issue of fact to go to the jury on the questions of the issuance of the policy by the defendant and its loss by the agent. Section 6767, Oomp. Stat. 1921, prescribes a standard form of fire insurance policy, which companies are required to use in writing contracts of insurance. The court _ will take judicial notice of the contents of the standard form of fire insurance policy, and it will be presumed that this form of policy wás issued in compliance with the law. The defendant denied the issuance of the policy. There is sufficient competent testimony to support the verdict of the jury. Garrison Coal Co. v. Semple, 82 Okla. 60, 198 Pac. 497.

We have carefully examined the record and find that the issues of fact were fairly submitted to the jury.

We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court:

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

STEPHENSON, C-

The plaintiff commenced his action against the defendant, in which he alleged that the defendant issued its fire insurance policy on a dwelling house owned by the plaintiff. The policy was alleged to have been issued on October 1, 1919, to run for a period of three years from date. The building was *133 totally destroyed by fire and the company failed to pay the loss. In the trial of this cause, judgment went for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed the cause to this court for review. The main contentions for reversal are: (1) The verdict of the jury is contrary to the evidence; and (2) contrary to the law. The main ground for controversy arises out of the alleged issuance of the policy by the defendant and the denial of execution by the defendant, and the further claim of the plaintiff that the agent of the defendant lost the policy after its issuance, and failed to deliver the same to the plaintiff. The plaintiff testified that he made inquiry of the agent about the policy and was advised by the agent that he had issued the same, and that it was a binding obligation on the company. It appears that a mortgagee of the insured who was concerned in the property being insured went with the insured to see the agent. Both parties testified that the agent went to his records and after some search advised them that the policy had been issued and was a binding obligation on the eom,pany. The parties further testified that the agent advised them the company could furnish a copy of the policy at any time it was desired. The plaintiff made writte¡n demand as is provided by the statute upon the defendant to be furnished the original policy. The request and failure of the company to furnish the policy rendered the foregoing proof competent as to its execution and loss. The testimony of the plaintiff was sufficient to raise an issue of fact to go to the jury on the questions of the issuance of the policy by the defendant and its loss by the agent. Section 6767, Oomp. Stat. 1921, prescribes a standard form of fire insurance policy, which companies are required to use in writing contracts of insurance. The court _ will take judicial notice of the contents of the standard form of fire insurance policy, and it will be presumed that this form of policy wás issued in compliance with the law. The defendant denied the issuance of the policy. There is sufficient competent testimony to support the verdict of the jury. Garrison Coal Co. v. Semple, 82 Okla. 60, 198 Pac. 497.

We have carefully examined the record and find that the issues of fact were fairly submitted to the jury.

We recommend that the judgment be affirmed.

By the Court:

It is so ordered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1924 OK 619, 229 P. 410, 103 Okla. 132, 1924 Okla. LEXIS 263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-paul-fire-marine-ins-co-v-wilburn-okla-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack