Maryland Casualty Co. v. Kern County

In each of two acitons brought by the county of Kern, Cal., to recover upon insurance policies given to insure it from loss due to burglary or robbery, the county recovered judgment in No. 7924 against the Maryland Casualty Company for the sum of $12,759.86, and in No. 7974 against the Glens Falls Indemnity Company for $21,266.43, representing their respective pro rata amounts of the sum of $34,026.29. The two cases were consolidated for trial. Separate verdicts and judgments were rendered against the respective companies. From each of these judgments, the defendant insurance company appeals.

The complaints of the county of Kern alleged that the county treasurer of the county had been robbed of the sum of $34,026.29. The defendants denied the robbery. The verdict of the jury in favor of the county establishes the fact of robbery on disputed evidence and that implied finding is not and cannot be questioned on this appeal.

The appellant companies each moved for a directed verdict on the ground the proof was insufficient to justify a verdict in favor of plaintiff. They assigned the denial of that motion as error and in support of their assignment contend that cer *776 tain…

(concurring).

I concur in the result, but do not agree with the reasoning of the majority with respect to the records of Kern county.

The two policies issued by Maryland Casualty Company, hereinafter called the Maryland Company, and the policy issued by the Glens Falls Indemnity Company, hereinafter called the Glens Company, each contained exactly the following provision:

This provision must be construed in the light of its purpose.

In Cooley’s Briefs on Ins. 2827, it is said that, “ * * * The purpose of the provision is, of course, to facilitate the ascertainment of the actual loss and protect the insurer against excessive and fraudulent claims.” See, also, Id. 2796.

Another rule of construction must be kept in mind. In National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. California Cotton Credit Corporation, 76 F.(2d) 279, 283 , this court said:

See, also, Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Dillon (C.C.A.4) 16 F.(2d) 774 ; Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Williams (C.C.A.5) 237 F. 171 ; Wright v. Union Ins. Co. (C.C.A.5) 13 F.(2d) 612 ; New York Underwriters Fire Ins. Co. v. Malham & Co. (C.C.A.8) 25 F.(2d) 415 ; Ætna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Reliable Auto Tire Co. (C.C.A.S) 58 F.(2d) 100 ;…