Ferguson v. Lumbermen's Insurance

Citations

• 45 Wash. 209
• 88 P. 128
• 1907 Wash. LEXIS 444

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Representations of Agent — Evidence—Contradicting Terms of Policy. In an action upon a fire insurance policy to recover for tbe loss of lumber in a mill, it is error to receive evidence of representations of the company’s agent, made at the time the policy was issued, to the effect that the policy was “unlimited” and without any restrictions, contradicting the plain terms of both the application and the policy, which provided that it insured lumber while contained in the yards or sheds in the yards, and expressly excluded the same while contained in the mill.</p> <p>Insurance — Policy—Construction—Items Covered — Additions to Mill. A planing mill is part of a “sawmill building and additions thereto,” within the terms of a policy of fire insurance, where it appears that one side of the planing mill was eighteen inches from the sawmill, there being no walls between them, that they communicated directly with each other for the passage of lumber from one to the other, and a large belt covered by a box communicated power from one to the other.</p> <p>Insurance — Policy—Construction—Trial—Question for Court. Where there are ho disputed questions of fact, and the issues depend entirely upon the proper construction of the contract of insurance, the same should be determined by the court as questions of law.</p>