{ "id": 856602, "name": "Mrs. Conrad Schuermann v. Dwelling House Insurance Company", "name_abbreviation": "Schuermann v. Dwelling House Insurance", "decision_date": "1894-12-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "200", "last_page": "205", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "57 Ill. App. 200" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "70 Mo. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo.", "case_ids": [ 8852386 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo/70/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "34 Mo. App. 481", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mo. App.", "case_ids": [ 494505 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mo-app/34/0481-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 N. J. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 831459 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/108/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ill. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 823928 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/78/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2613446 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/63/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 651", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "39 Ill. App. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "142 Ill. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Hun 371", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "5 Brad. 141", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Bradf.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2742971 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ill/92/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ill. App. 121", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "137 Ill. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "42 Ohio St. 519", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ohio St.", "case_ids": [ 8841941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ohio-st/42/0519-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 Conn. 420", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 506262 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/conn/50/0420-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 Penn. St. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa.", "case_ids": [ 1065593 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa/90/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 N. W. Rep. 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "52 Iowa, 457", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2322133 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/52/0457-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 N. W. Rep. 350", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N. J. Law, 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.J.L.", "case_ids": [ 363317 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/njl/44/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ill. App. 70", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 4899740 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/19/0070-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App.", "case_ids": [ 5063181 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app/44/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 Ill. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 831459 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/108/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ill. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 823928 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/78/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 Ill. 464", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2613446 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/63/0464-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 Ill. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2742971 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/92/0064-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 490, "char_count": 8860, "ocr_confidence": 0.535, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.77084526399421e-08, "percentile": 0.40944163153913604 }, "sha256": "f62f03c2bd6141534b8b502a9f3f831c9ae91b6d1efec0a2fe17cb9a799d8157", "simhash": "1:921a6f5591d469f9", "word_count": 1548 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:02:41.767696+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Mrs. Conrad Schuermann v. Dwelling House Insurance Company." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman\ndeliyeeed the opinion OF THE CoUET.\nThe principal contention of plaintiff in error is that the assured had no notice that the premises were vacant, and consequently the provision of the policy that the policy shall be void if the premises be or become vacant or unoccupied or not in use is not applicable to this case.\nWhile it is true that insurance policies are to be liberally construed in favor of the assured, they are at the same time to be reasonably construed. Heuer v. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., 44 Ill. App. 429.\nTo construe this policy to be the same as if it read, \u201c this policy shall be void if the premises become vacant and the assured have notice thereof,\u201d would be not to construe the contract entered into, but to make a new compact.\nWe do not understand the authorities as sustaining the contention of appellant; on the contrary, under policies like this, where the provision is absolute, the rule is that the policy is suspended during the time at which the premises are vacant. May on Insurance, Sec. 249; Niagara Fire Ins. Co. v. Drela, 19 Ill. App. 70; North American Fire Ins. Co. v. Zaenger, 63 Ill. 464; American Ins. Co. v. Padfield, 78 Ill. 167; Ph\u0153nix Fire Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 92 Ill. 64; Insurance Co. of North America v. Garland, 108 Ill. 220; Sonneburn v. Ins. Co., 44 N. J. Law, 220; Richards v. Continental Ins. Co., 47 N. W. Rep. 350; Dennison v. Ph\u0153nix Ins. Co., 52 Iowa, 457; Snyder v. Firemen\u2019s Fund Ins. Co., 42 N. W. Rep. 630; McClure v. Watertown Fire Ins. Co., 90 Penn. St. 277-280; Bennett v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 50 Conn. 420; Farmers\u2019 Insurance Co. v. Wells, 42 Ohio St. 519.\nIt is manifest from a reading of the testimony of Henry Schaeler that the premises were not only vacant but that the difference between the risk of occupied dwellings and vacant houses left as these were, was great.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s son, who was her agent in renting the houses, told the tenants to move out. There is no evidence that he was directly authorized by the plaintiff to do this, but she, in testifying, neither repudiated his act nor denied that she had knowledge of it.\nWithout regard, however, to whether she had notice of the vacant condition of the premises, we think that, being vacant, the policy was suspended.\nThe judgment of the Superior Court is therefore affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Waterman" } ], "attorneys": [ "Brief foe Plaintiff in Error, John M. Hamilton, Attorney.", "Brief for Defendant in Error,\" Harbert & Daley, Attorneys." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Mrs. Conrad Schuermann v. Dwelling House Insurance Company.\n1. Insurance-Premises Vacant-Policy Suspended.-Under policies of insurance with absolute provisions that the policies shall be void if any change takes place in the interest, title or possession of the property insured (except change of occupants without vacancy, or unoccupancy, or other increase of hazard), whether by legal process or judgment, or by voluntary act of the insured, or otherwise, or if the building insured, whether intended for occupancy by the owner or tenant, be or become vacant or unoccupied, or not in use, the rule is that the policy is suspended during the time the premises are vacant.\nMemorandum.\u2014Assumpsit. In the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Seabs, Judge, presiding. Declaration on policy of insurance. Pleas: (1) General issue. (2) That at the time of the loss of the property by fire, the building described in the policy of insurance was vacant and unoccupied, and that therefore the defendant is not liable. Trial by jury; verdict for defendant by direction of the court; error by the plaintiff. Heard in this court at the October term, 1894, and affirmed.\nOpinion filed December 20, 1894.\nStatement ox the Case.\nThis is a suit brought by plaintiff in error against defendant in error upon an insurance policy to recover the amount of insurance provided in the policy for loss by fire of the building therein described while the policy was in force.\nThe only defense made by the defendant upon the trial of the case was that the premises were vacant and unoccupied at the time the fire occurred, and that the policy was therefore void, and forfeited on account of a condition therein. The condition of the policy upon which defendant relied for a forfeiture and avoidance of the policy, was as follows:\n\u201c This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed hereon or added hereto, shall be void * * * if any change take place in the interest, title or possession of the subject of insurance (except change of occupants without vacancy, or unoccupancy, or other increase of hazard), whether by legal process or judgment, or by voluntary act of the insured, or otherwise, * * * or if the building herein described, whether intended for occupancy by owner or tenant, be or become vacant or unoccupied or not in use.\u201d\nThe plaintiff lived at the time of the fire seven miles away from the property destroyed.\nThe house was rented as a tenement house and was occupied by several tenants of Mrs. Schuermann, each occupying different parts of the house up to the time of and shortly before the fire.\nThe building was destroyed by fire on the night of the 21st of July, 1891. Mrs. Schuermann had three tenants in the house who had rented their respective parts and were entitled to remain in the house during the whole month of July.\nA son of the plaintiff, who had charge of the renting of the houses, some time before the fire notified the tenants to move out, as plaintiff wished to fix the houses up.\nThe day before the fire, a carpenter, at the request of a son of the plaintiff, went through the houses for the purpose of making an estimate on the repairing of them; they were then entirely vacant, with the outer doors unfastened and the glass in most of the windows broken.\nThe court instructed the jury to find a verdict for the defendant, refusing all instructions asked by plaintiff.\nBrief foe Plaintiff in Error, John M. Hamilton, Attorney.\nThe court erred in instructing the jury to find for the defendant.\nWhether the building was at the time of the loss vacant and unoccupied within the meaning of the policy is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. Rockford Ins. Co. v. Storig, 137 Ill. 650; Home Ins. Co. v. Field, 53 Ill. App. 121; Ph\u0153nix Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 92 Ill. 64; Western Ins. Co. v. Mason, 5 Brad. 141; Waite v. Agricultural Co., 13 Hun 371.\nThe burden of proof is on the insurance company to show vacancy or unoccupancy. Traders Ins. Co. v. Race, 142 Ill. 343.\nUnless vacancy or unoccupancy is shown by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence, the jury should find for the plaintiff upon that question. Rockford Ins. Co. v. Storig, 137 Ill. 650.\nSince the object of an insurance contract is indemnity, no rule is better established than that in all cases the policy is to be most liberally construed in favor of the assured. German Ins. Co. v. Miller, 39 Ill. App. 640.\nProvisions like the one under consideration, in a policy of insurance, are for the protection and benefit of the insurer, and are inserted in its interest, and therefore when a forfeiture of the policy is sought because of a violation thereof, they are to be strictly construed\u2014that is, construed most strongly against the insurer. In other words, no intendments will be indulged in favor of a forfeiture thereunder. Rockford Ins. Co. v. Storig, 137 Ill. 651.\nBrief for Defendant in Error,\" Harbert & Daley, Attorneys.\nThe condition in the policy rendering it void in case the premises should become vacant or unoccupied, or not in use, is binding, and renders the policy void if violated. North American Fire Ins. Co. v. Zaenger, 63 Ill. 464; American Ins. Co. v. Padfield, 78 Ill. 167; Ph\u0153nix Fire Ins. Co. v. Tucker, 92 Ill. 64; Insurance Co. of North America v. Garland, 108 Ill. 220.\nThe term \u201c occupied \u201d always implies a substantial and practical use of the building for the purpose for which it was intended, and as contemplated by the terms of the policy. A dwelling-house is chiefly designed for the abode of mankind. It is occupied when human beings habitually reside in it, and unoccupied when no one lives or dwells in it. Sonneborn v. Insurance Co., 44 N. J. 225.\nOccupancy of a dwelling-house is living in it. Supervision over it, and leaving a few articles of furniture in it, are not sufficient. Craig v. Springfield F. and M. Ins. Co. 34 Mo. App. 481; Cook v. Continental Fire Ins. Co., 70 Mo. 610.\nA fair and reasonable construction of the language \u201c vacant and unoccupied \u201d is that it should be without an occupant; without any person living in it. This is the popular meaning of the language, as appears from the evidence. Several witnesses, knowing that no one was residing in it, testified that it was vacant, and so would the great majority, if not all persons, say the same thing. The language is not used in a technical, but in a popular sense. American Fire Insurance Company v. Padfield, 78 Ill. 167; Ph\u0153nix Insurance Company v. Tucker, 92 Ill. 64." }, "file_name": "0200-01", "first_page_order": 196, "last_page_order": 201 }