{
  "id": 3343223,
  "name": "Herman Cohn, trading as Empire Loan Bank, Appellant, v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cohn v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1927-03-29",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 31,234",
  "first_page": "123",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "244 Ill. App. 123"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 560,
    "char_count": 12610,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "sha256": "0d2449294ff9e94a1733ab5dec0d7e22c61d46a2e15bc4821711d960e5ea3cc7",
    "simhash": "1:176330125db9fb7f",
    "word_count": 2112
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:23:28.054403+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Herman Cohn, trading as Empire Loan Bank, Appellant, v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Fitch\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThis suit is brougnt on a burglary insurance policy. The defendant insurance company denies that the loss claimed is covered by its policy. After a trial without a jury, the trial court agreed with defendant\u2019s theory and entered a finding and judgment against the plaintiff, who appeals.\nPlaintiff is a pawnbroker. In 1924 he had in his possession diamonds, watches and jewelry pledged for loans made by him, and worth approximately $75,000, and in addition he usually carried similar merchandise of his own, worth approximately $50,000. All this property he kept at night in two large safes, the walls of which were fireproof, consisting of an outer plate of steel less than half an inch thick, an inner plate of steel less than a quarter of an inch in thickness, and, between these steel plates, a fireproof filling several inches thick similar to concrete. The outer door of each safe was five inches thick, having a thin steel plate outside and along the edges of the door, inclosing a similar fireproof filling. Inside each of the safes was built a burglar-proof steel chest or compartment approximately a cubic foot in interior dimensions, having a steel door two and one-half inches thick and a combination lock. It appears from the evidence that insurance men and manufacturers of safes use different terms to designate the three types of safes in common use. One type, which is built entirely of steel and found only in banks, is designated by them as \u201cburglar-proof.\u201d Another type, designated as \u201cfire and burglar-proof,\u201d is a safe which has \u201ca fireproof jacket with a burglar-proof chest inside.\u201d This is the type of safes which plaintiff had. The third type, designated only as \u201cfireproof,\u201d has a fireproof covering and has no burglar-proof compartment. The evidence further shows that the premium rate for burglary insurance upon goods kept in \u201cburglar-proof\u201d safes is very much less than upon the same goods when kept in \u201cfire and burglar-proof\u201d safes.\nIn February, 1924, defendant executed and delivered to plaintiff the insurance policy on which this suit is brought. The photographic copy of the policy in the record shows that a printed form was used in which, between an opening paragraph and a number of printed \u201cGeneral Agreements\u201d regarding notices, proofs of loss, etc., there was a blank space containing only the printed legend \u201c (Attach Eider Here).\u201d The opening paragraph states, in substance, that defendant, in consideration of \u201ca stated premium, agrees to indemnify the plaintiff in the total sum of $50,000' for 12 months from February 26,1924. The kind and character of losses included in this indemnity agreement are particularly specified, and are only specified, in two riders, each with a special indorsement attached to it, which are pasted in the blank space mentioned.\nThe first rider provides for indemnity to the extent of $25,000, for losses occasioned by robbery, \u201ccommonly known as \u2018Hold-up,\u2019 \u201d from within the office or counting-room or store of the assured, of any of the property scheduled in that rider, which is labeled \u201cOffice Hold-up Eider.\u201d There is no claim in this case for any loss under that rider or its special indorsement.\nThe second rider, attached immediately under the first, is the one under which a loss is claimed in this case. This rider is also a printed form, with blanks filled in with a typewriter. In the lower left-hand corner of the first page of this rider are printed the words: \u201cSAFE BIDEB.\u201d It begins as follows:\n\u201cFor All Loss of money in current use, negotiable Securities (as hereinafter defined), uncancelled United States Government Post Office or Bevenue Stamps, and merchandise described in the Schedule hereinafter contained, and therein stated to be insured hereunder, in consequence of the felonious abstraction of the same by burglars from the interior of the safe or safes described in the said Schedule and located in the office or storeroom actually occupied by the Assured and described in said Schedule, and hereinafter called the premises, by such burglars who shall have made entry into such safe or safes by the use of tools, explosives, electricity or chemicals directly thereupon, of which force and violence there shall be visible marks on the exterior thereof.\u201d\nThen follows a series of printed \u201cSpecial Agreements,\u201d of which such parts as are material to the question here involved are as follows:\n\u201cA. The Company\u2019s liability is limited to the amount of insurance applicable to the contents of the several safes respectively as stated in Statement 6 of the Schedule, and also to the amounts attached to the several items respectively of Statement 5 of the Schedule, and subject to such limits as respects each safe and each item, the total liability hereunder is limited to the sum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,-000.00). .\n\u201cB. The Company shall not be liable. * * * (9) For loss of any property under insurance attaching specifically to Items B or D of Statement 5 of the Schedule, unless the same shall have been feloniously abstracted from the burglar-proof part of the safe described in the Schedule after entry into the said burglar-proof part shall have been gained by the use of tools or explosives directly upon the said burglarproof part as well as upon the fire-proof part, if any, of said safe. * * *\n\u201cC. The term \u2018burglar-proof\u2019 as applied in this Policy to a safe or to a part of a safe shall be understood to mean such safe or such part of a safe as is constructed of steel and is designed by the safe manufacturers to furnish protection against burglars and styled by them burglar-proof. A safe, chest or compartment of a safe shall not be considered burglarproof, unless it shall have steel walls at least one inch in thickness, and unless the steel in the door or doors thereof shall be at least one and one-half inches in thickness, exclusive of bolt work.\u201d\nAfter these special agreements follows the \u201cSchedule,\u201d consisting of 15 consecutively numbered \u201cstatements.\u201d Statement 5 of the schedule is subdivided into Items A, B, C, D and E, and statement 6 contains 16 tabulated items, beginning with the letter \u201c(a)\u201d and ending with the letter \u201c (p) \u201d.\nStatement 4 of the schedule is as follows:\n\u201c4. The merchandise insured under this policy consists of merchandise usual to the business.\u201d\nStatement 5 is as follows, so far as it is applicable in this case:\n\u201c5. The insurance granted by this policy attaches specifically as follows:\n* * * \u201cPremium.\n\u201cItem B. In amount of $25,000.00 to merchandise as described in statement 4 in burglar-proof safe or in burglar-proof part of fire and burglar-proof safe Nos. 1 & 2. $88.00\u201d\nStatement 6 of the schedule, so far as applicable here, is as follows:\n\u201c6. The safe or safes are described and designated as follows:\nThe words \u201cSee End,\u201d opposite Item (o) in the schedule, refer to the special indorsement pasted on the front of the \u201cSafe Rider.\u201d That indorsement reads as follows:\n\u201cIt is understood and agreed that the insurance granted under the Safe Rider covers blanket in Safes No. 1 and No. 2 but the Company\u2019s total liability on both Safes shall not exceed Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).\u201d\nPlaintiff testified, and it was not disputed, that on the night of April 5, 1924, his shop was entered by burglars, who blew off the outer door of safe No. 2 described in the schedule, and carried away diamonds, watches and jewelry \"valued at more than $25,000 from the interior of the safe, but they were unable to enter the burglar-proof inner compartment, which at that time had in it eight or ten thousand dollars\u2019 worth of diamonds. The loss claimed is for the value of the property so taken. It was stipulated that such value was in excess of $25,000.\nThe controversy between the parties turns on the proper construction to be given to the special indorsement attached to the safe rider. Plaintiff contends that the indorsement should be construed to mean that the policy covers everything contained in both safes, whether inside or outside the burglar-proof chests, to the extent of $25,000 in value. Defendant contends that the indorsement means that \u201cthe insurance granted under the Safe Rider\u201d covers, like a \u201cblanket,\u201d such property, in either or both of the safes, to the amount of $25,000, as is \u201ctherein stated to be insured thereunder,\u201d viz, the property contained only in the burglar-proof chests.\nThe argument of the plaintiff on this point overlooks, or ignores, the fact that the word \u201ccovers\u201d in the indorsement is preceded not only by the word \u201cinsurance\u201d but by the phrase \u201cthe insurance granted under the Safe Rider.\u201d Under well-established principles of construction, effect must be given to all the language used in the indorsement. This can be done, and can only be done, by ascertaining from the \u2018 \u2018 Safe Eider\u201d what insurance was \u201cgranted\u201d under it. By the terms of the first paragraph of the safe rider, the only merchandise insured was the \u201cmerchandise described in the schedule. * * * and therein stated to be insured hereunder.\u201d The only merchandise so described and so stated was the \u201cmerchandise usual to the business \u2019 \u2019 of the assured, when contained either in a \u201cburglar-proof\u201d safe, or in the \u201cburglar-proof part\u201d of a \u201cfire and burglar-proof\u201d safe. Plaintiff\u2019s safes were not \u201cburglar-proof\u201d as that term is defined in Special Agreement C in the safe rider. His safes, as the schedule states, were the type known as \u201cfire and burglar-proof.\u201d By Item B in statement 5 of the schedule \u201cthe insurance granted\u201d attached specifically to merchandise in the burglar-proof parts of plaintiff\u2019s safes. The same limitation appears in items (o) and (p) of statement 6 of the schedule, and again in Paragraph B of the special agreements above quoted.\nWhen these paragraphs are all considered together, as they must be, we are of the opinion that the special indorsement does not change the meaning or effect of the safe rider to which it is attached, except to make the insurance of $25,000 mentioned in the special indorsement cover (\u201cblanket\u201d) all the property, and only the property, insured by the terms of the safe rider, whether such property was in safe No. 1 or safe No. 2 or both. The safe rider insured only such property as was kept in the \u201cburglar-proof part\u201d of those safes, and none of the provisions of the rider which so state was changed by the indorsement. In other words, we hold that the words \u201ccovers blanket in safes No. 1 and No. 2,\u201d found in the indorsement, are limited and qualified by the preceding words in the same sentence, \u201cinsurance granted under the Safe Eider. \u2019 \u2019\nThis view is confirmed by other circumstances appearing from the evidence. For example, the amount of premium, $88, paid for $25,000 worth of burglary insurance appears to be the usual rate charged for burglary insurance of merchandise kept in \u201cburglarproof\u201d safes, after deducting certain agreed discounts, and is less than one-third of the amount of premium that would be charged if all the contents of the plaintiff\u2019s safes were intended to be covered. Again, it appears, from the evidence and from the face of the photographic copy of the policy, that the policy as originally written contained the figures \u201c$12,500\u201d after the word \u201cMerchandise\u201d in the second and third columns of statement 6 of the schedule, opposite the item \u201c(o),\u201d and that these figures were erased and the words, \u201cSee End,\u201d ins'erted when the special indorsement was placed on the safe rider. It is true that the witnesses disagree as to what was said at that time, but they do not disagree as to what was done at that time. If the testimony as to what was said at that time was admissible, the preponderance of the evidence upon the point tends to support the construction we have given to the indorsement. If all such testimony be disregarded, and we think it should be, there remains the significant fact that the rider was not altered in any respect except as stated. Having reached this conclusion as to the meaning and effect of the indorsement, it will not be necessary to consider other questions discussed in the briefs.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nGridley, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Fitch"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Frederick A. Brown and Samuel J. Hachtman, for appellant; Wm. G. Worthey, of counsel.",
      "Philip H. Treacy, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Herman Cohn, trading as Empire Loan Bank, Appellant, v. New Jersey Fidelity & Plate Glass Insurance Company, Appellee.\nGen. No. 31,234.\nHeard in the second division of this court for the first district at the October term, 1926.\nOpinion filed March 29, 1927.\nFrederick A. Brown and Samuel J. Hachtman, for appellant; Wm. G. Worthey, of counsel.\nPhilip H. Treacy, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0123-01",
  "first_page_order": 157,
  "last_page_order": 165
}