M. F. Dunn & Bro. v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance

Citations

• 104 La. 31

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>Where, in answer to a suit on a fire policy, it is charged that the claim made against the insurer is in furtherance of a systematic atttempt fraudulently to collect more than is due, and that, to that end, the plaintiffs have attempted, “both before and after the fire, to conceal the origin and prevent the discovery of said fire,” testimony tending to show that the connections of an automatic fire alarm, on the premises upon which the fire occurred, were cut, in order to prevent the existence of the fire from becoming known, and to bring home such cutting, or knowledge thereof, to the assured, who are the plaintiffs before the court, should not be excluded on the ground that neither incendiarism, nor a violation of the automatic fire alarm clause in the policy, are specifically charged in the answer.</p> <p>2. Where this court finds error in the ruling of a trial court excluding testimony upon a particular point, the case may be remanded, in order that testimony upon that point may be received,' without re-opening it to further evidence upon other issues.</p>