From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Halpin v. Ae. F. Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1890
120 N.Y. 70 (N.Y. 1890)

Summary

In Halpin v. Ætna Fire Ins. Co. (120 N.Y. 70) it was held that where a factory had become idle, leaving it in charge of a caretaker who had the keys and visited the premises three or four times a week, and who obtained the services of a neighbor living about fifteen feet from the building who watched the building when he was at home, and whose wife looked after it day times while he was away at work, was unoccupied under a similar clause in a policy.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Pioneer Co-operative Fire Ins. Co.

Opinion

Argued March 5, 1890

Decided March 18, 1890

Thomas E. Pearsall for appellant. Nathaniel C. Moak for respondent.


This action was brought on an insurance policy issued February 10, 1883, to recover the damages sustained by reason of the destruction by fire of the property insured. The defendant, by its policy, had insured the defendant in the sum of $2,000 "on its boilers, steam engine and connections, machines, machinery, shafting, belting, pulleys, hangers, tubs, tanks, vats, tables, tools and all machinery and apparatus used in the business of manufacturing leather and morocco, all contained in the frame building and extension situate on the south side of Wallabout street, about 275 feet westerly from Lee avenue, Brooklyn, one year, against all loss or damage by fire to the property specified," etc. This policy, however, was made subject to the following condition: "If the above-mentioned premises shall become vacant or unoccupied, and so remain more than thirty days without notice to and consent of this company in writing, then this policy shall be void; any change within the control of the assured material to the risk shall avoid this policy."

The fire occurred on January 4, 1884, and resulted in a total loss of the building and machinery. It appears that the plaintiff had leased the building and machinery to Hance Underhill, who had been engaged in the manufacture of leather; that in July, 1883, they ceased business and left the premises, and from that time the building was closed and the factory remained idle until the fire; that the plaintiff resided at Newark, N.J., and had left the factory in charge of one Faulkner, who had the keys and visited the premises three or four times a week; that he caused the windows to be boarded up, and had one John Halpin to watch the premises; that Halpin lived in a house on the premises about fifteen feet from the factory building, and looked after the premises when at home, and day-times, when he was away at work, his wife looked after it. Halpin did not have a key to the factory, but whenever he wanted to go in he went to Faulkner and got it.

The facts disclosed in reference to the premises becoming vacant or unoccupied are the same as those considered by us in the case of Halpin v. Phœnix Ins. Co. ( 118 N.Y. 165), in which we held that the premises were unoccupied within the meaning of the policy. The condition says: "If the above-mentioned premises shall become vacant or unoccupied." The only premises mentioned above is the building in which the boilers and machinery insured are located. The premises mentioned in the condition clearly refers to such building. ( Herrman v. Adriatic Fire Ins. Co., 85 N.Y. 162.)

There is no claim that the defendant had notice that the premises were vacant or consented that they might remain unoccupied. After the plaintiff had rested, and again, after the evidence had closed, the defendant moved for a dismissal of the complaint upon the ground that the premises were unoccupied within the meaning of the policy prior to the fire, and had so remained more than thirty days without notice to and consent of the defendant. The motions were denied and exceptions were taken. Under our decision in the case of Halpin v. Phœ;nix Ins. Co. ( supra) the motions should have been granted.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

All concur.

Judgment reversed.


Summaries of

Halpin v. Ae. F. Ins. Co.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 18, 1890
120 N.Y. 70 (N.Y. 1890)

In Halpin v. Ætna Fire Ins. Co. (120 N.Y. 70) it was held that where a factory had become idle, leaving it in charge of a caretaker who had the keys and visited the premises three or four times a week, and who obtained the services of a neighbor living about fifteen feet from the building who watched the building when he was at home, and whose wife looked after it day times while he was away at work, was unoccupied under a similar clause in a policy.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Pioneer Co-operative Fire Ins. Co.
Case details for

Halpin v. Ae. F. Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:THOMAS HALPIN, Respondent, v . THE AETNA FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 18, 1890

Citations

120 N.Y. 70 (N.Y. 1890)
23 N.E. 988

Citing Cases

Williams v. Pioneer Co-operative Fire Ins. Co.

In Halpin v. Phenix Ins. Co. ( 118 N.Y. 165, 173) the court court said that "while a dwelling house will not…

Trinity Universal Ins. Co., Dallas, Tex. v. W.C. Wills

When a veneer mill ceases to produce veneer, the machinery being silent and remaining idle, and the employees…