{ "id": 8658855, "name": "THERMAL BELT SANITARIUM COMPANY v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Thermal Belt Sanitarium Co. v. Hartford Insurance Co.", "decision_date": "1911-12-23", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "551", "last_page": "556", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "157 N.C. 551" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "1 Ga. App., 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga. App.", "case_ids": [ 1249926 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/1/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "145 Mich., 558", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1498422 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mich/145/0558-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 Me., 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Me.", "case_ids": [ 652667 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/me/87/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 Mass., 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 2077149 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/mass/69/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 U. S., 441", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "137 N. C., 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 N. C., 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "70 Ark., 451", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1509511 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/70/0451-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 N. H, 252", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "24 N. C., 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8687723 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/24/0170-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 529, "char_count": 10972, "ocr_confidence": 0.455, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1146904769136531e-07, "percentile": 0.5717592029496701 }, "sha256": "6e4772cc60774cd83df9a5d8e42dc2817306d005dfe11f94131e7087a844f15c", "simhash": "1:b626fc79db4dc07e", "word_count": 1831 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:57:03.195282+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "THERMAL BELT SANITARIUM COMPANY v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hoke, J.,\nafter stating the case: The descriptive words of this policy and the physical placing of the cottages and their use and purpose in connection with the plant and its operation are made to appear further as follows: \u201cThe location of the buildings is on top of the hill above the town, consisting of one administration building, which is a two-story frame metal-roof building, longer than wide, with nothing in the way of a lean-to nailed- to the building. The rest of the sanitarium property consisted of four cottages, one story, metal roof, consisting of four rooms,'bath and trunk room, located in a semicircle; two cottages, No. 1 and No. 4, about'20 feet from each comer of the main building, the other cottages about 20 feet distant from each other, making a half circle around the f\u201eront of the main building. They have an electric bell system. There was a series of wires running from each, room of each cottage to the hall of the administration building, and there was also a water supply system, extending from a tank on the upper part of the grounds to the main building, and from the main building to all the cottages, one continuous system. Also a sewerage system accommodating all four cottages, one line going from the main building to a cesspool, and a line going from each of the cottages to the main line. There was a push-button in each room, so that when the patients needed assistance they could ring the bell in the main building.\nQ. What were those cottages used for? . A. Sleeping rooms for the patients.\nQ. Used for any other purpose? A. No.\nQ. Were there any kitchens, dining-rooms, or laundry in these cottages? A. No.\nQ. How were they used in connection with the main building?\nDefendant\u2019s objection overruled; defendant excepts.\nA. Used as sleeping-rooms for patients. The patients used those for bedrooms and went to the main building for meals, if well enough. '(Defendant\u2019s objection overruled; defendant excepts.) And for consultation with physicians; but if not well enough, the meals were sent out from the main building, and if in their beds, the doctor\u2019s nurses visited them in their rooms.\nOn this or similar facts there is authority tending to support the position that the cottages would come within the descriptive terms of the policies as a matter of law. Massey v. Belisle, 24 N. C., 170; Marsh v. Insurance Co., 71 N. H, 252; Maitherson v. Kimball, 70 Ark., 451. But in any event \u2014 and this, in our opinion, is the more correct view \u2014 the words are so far ambiguous as to permit the parol testimony in aid. of the description and so as to carry out the true intent and agreement of the parties. R. R. v. R. R., 147 N. C., 382; Ward v. Gay, 137 N. C., 400; Merriam v. U. S., 107 U. S., 441; Sargent v. Adams, 69 Mass., 72; Robinson v. Insurance Co., 87 Me., 399; Lumber Co. v. Insurance Co., 145 Mich., 558. Insurance Co. v. Tye, 1 Ga. App., 380, an authority much relied upon by defendant, could well be distinguished from the case presented here. Tbe decision iiroceeds upon tbe supposition tbat under certain conditions parol evidence could be received witb tbe view and purpose of changing tbe conclusion reached. When we consider tbe relevant facts in evidence, tbe position of tbe cottages, only 20 feet away, tbe physical connections between these and tbe main building in reference to water, light, sewerage, etc., \u201ctbe inseparable identity of use\u201d and witb nothing to fill tbe descriptive words, \u201cadjoining and communicating additions,\u201d except tbe cottages, there is assuredly no error to defendant\u2019s prejudice in referring tbe question to tbe jury as to whether tbe policy did and was intended to cover and protect tbe cottages. Tbe position is not affected by tbe fact tbat a former policy bad insured tbe main building and tbe cottages in separate and different amounts. This is an opposing fact, bearing on tbe weight of tbe testimony objected to, and did not affect its competency. It was this fact which called forth tbe protest of plaintiff\u2019s officials as to tbe insufficiency of tbe description, and which was quieted by the assurance of tbe company\u2019s agent tbat tbe description as written would include tbe cottages. There was no reversible error in permitting tbe witness to say tbat plaintiff was tbe owner of tbe property. This is a case where title is presumed prima facie- from tbe possession and control of tbe property, and, further, tbe issuance of tbe \u201cpolicy to tbe insured\u201d was itself prima facie evidence of title, conclusive for tbe purposes of such an action as this unless in some way questioned or impeached. 19 Cyc., 941.\nThere is no error, and tbe judgment for plaintiff is affirmed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hoke, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Harbins & Van Winkle for plaintiff.", "A. 8. Barnard for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "THERMAL BELT SANITARIUM COMPANY v. HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 23 December, 1911.)\n1. Insurance \u2014 \u201cAdjoining and Communicating Additions\u201d \u2014 Property Insured \u2014 Parol Evidence \u2014 Interpretation of Policy.\nIn an action by a sanitarium company for loss under a policy of fire insurance on its \u201ctwo-story frame metal-roof building, with adjoining and communicating additions, etc.,\u201d recovery was resisted on the grounds that the policy did not cover a cottage about 15 or 20 feet from the main building, as it was not an \u201cadjoining or communicating addition\u201d: Held, (1) evidence was competent to fit the cottage to the description in the policy which tended to show that the cottages contained rooms for the patients of the sanitarium who were, under certain circumstances, treated in these rooms; that all were under the same management and that there were call-bells from each of these rooms which communicated with the main building, and that all had the same system of sewerage and water pipes; (2) that the cottages would come within the descriptive terms of the policy as a matter of law; (3) that testimony that the cottages were insured in separate and distinct amounts in another policy would relate to the weight \u00f3f the testimony and not to its competency.\n2. Insurance, Fire \u2014 Title\u2014Evidence\u2014Issued to \u201cInsured\u201d \u2014 Possession.\nEvidence that the policy of insurance \u201cwas issued to the insured,\u201d and that the insured was in possession and control of it, is sufficient upon the question of the plaintiff\u2019s title, in his action to recover damages from fire to his property on his policy of insurance, and conclusive unless in some way questioned or impeached.\nAppeal from Lane, J., at May Term, 1911, of Pole.\nCivil action, to recover on two concurrent fire insurance policies. Tbe evidence tended to sbow tbat plaintiff corporation held two concurrent fire insurance policies, alleged to cover its main building and four cottages situate near the same, and \u201cThat on 5 Mayj 1909, a fire occurred which destroyed one of the cottages and also damaged the main building. Defendant resisted recovery for destruction of the cottage, claiming that same was not covered by the descriptive terms of the policy. The following is the description, which it seems was typewritten and annexed to each of the policies:\n\u201c$2,000 on the two-story frame metal-roof building, with adjoining and communicating additions, including foundations, piping and plumbing, fixed heating and lighting apparatus and all permanent fixtures as a part of said building while occupied as a sanitarium, situate detached in the town of Tryon.\u201d\nAnd in reference thereto and over defendant\u2019s objection this, with other evidence, was admitted, being the relevant part of a conversation between the general manager of plaintiff company and the insurance agent in reference to the acceptance of the policies and at the time same were delivered.\nQ. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Engle about the policies? A. Yes.\nQ. What was it?\nObjection by defendant. Overruled, and exception.\nA. I read over the typewritten portion of the contract and said: \u201cI don\u2019t like this adjoining and communicating. It is not right, because the buildings are not adjoining.\u201d Mr. Engle said the insurance companies considered buildings as close together as those were, adjoining and communicating, when used for the same purpose.\nDefendants objection to this answer overruled, and defendant excepts.\nQ. How many buildings were there in the plant ? A. Five.\nQ. \"What did they consist of ?\nDefendant\u2019s objection overruled, and defendant excepts.\nA. Consisted of a main building, or administration building, and four cottages. These cottages were used for the sick patients\u2019 rooms and the main building for the nurses and doctors, housekeeper, dining-room, kitchen, and office room.\nQ. Were there any kitchens in the cottages?\nDefendant\u2019s objection overruled. Defendant excepts.\nA. No.\nQ. \"What was in the-cottages?\nDefendant\u2019s objection overruled. Defendant excepts.\nA. First a sun room on the outside, a hall, four bedrooms, bath-room, and trunk-room.\nQ. How far were they from the main building?\nDefendant\u2019s objection overruled. Defendant excepts.\nA. About 15 or 20 feet.\nQ. Was there any communication with the main building? A. Annunciator system running to the main building.- (Defendant\u2019s objection overruled. Defendant excepts.) These were for the patients to summon the nurses from the nurses\u2019 rooms; there was a button in each room, with an electric wire communicating with the bell in the main building.\nQ. Were there any laundries in the cottages? A. No.\nQ. Was it possible for anybody to use the cottages independent of the main building, as a separate establishment? A. No.\nTo all of the foregoing evidence the defendant in apt time objected. Objection overruled, and defendant excepted.\nQ. Going back to the main building, describe that. A. The main building was a two-story building, the first floor consisting of a porch running around three sides, a hall and writing-room, or office, reception-room, dining-room, pantry, and the housekeeper\u2019s room.\nQ. What was the shape of this building apart from the porches ? A. It was an oblong building.\nQ. Were there any additions to that building? A. No, there were no additions to the main building proper; it was one building, oblong in shape.\nQ. Do you recollect a fire occurring in your property there? A. Yes.\nQ. About when was that fire? A. It occurred about 5 May, 1909.\nQ. What was. destroyed in that fire, if anything? A. One of the cottages, and the main building and another cottage were damaged.\nThere was other testimony more fully describing the physical placing of the cottages and their purpose and uses in relation to the plant.\nOn the trial a witness, E. Brownlee, haiving an interest in the property and its management, was allowed, over defendant\u2019s objection, to say that the property was owned by plaintiff, the Thermal Belt Sanitarium Company. In this connection, it appeared that plaintiff was in possession and control and management of the property when same was insured and at the time of trial. There was verdict for plaintiff for amount of loss.\nJudgment, and defendant excepted and appealed.\nHarbins & Van Winkle for plaintiff.\nA. 8. Barnard for defendant." }, "file_name": "0551-01", "first_page_order": 591, "last_page_order": 596 }