Payne

Payne v. California Union Fire Insurance

Good Law
129 Cal. App. 582·19 P.2d 40
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaFebruary 14, 1933Docket No. 8753.California2,102 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Comstock, J.

This action was brought to reform a contract for fire insurance and to recover a money judgment for a fire loss alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff and to have been covered by the contract. Judgment went for the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed therefrom.

It appears from the evidence that plaintiff was the owner of several parcels of real estate in and about Los Angeles. One of these was a frame building with composition roof, about 137 feet long by 20 feet wide, situated at No. 127 Venice Boulevard, Venice, California, occupied at the time of the issuance of the insurance policy in question herein by a tenant of the plaintiff’s for dwelling purposes, and also used as a garage and for the storage of various materials.

Defendant maintained an office at Palms, in the county of Los Angeles, with one George W. Schilling as its agent in charge thereof. Said agent was duly authorized to contract for, execute and issue policies of fire insurance for defendant. The plaintiff owned a policy of fire insurance covering the said building, which policy was about to expire. The said Schilling had written many fire insurance policies for plaintiff upon his various properties…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.