Phoenix Assurance Co. v. Eppstein

Citations

• 73 Fla. 991

Syllabus

<p>1. Where a policy of insurance indemnifies the owner of an automobile against loss or damage occasioned by theft, robbery, or pilferage, the owner cannot, under this clause of the policy, recover for damage to a machine which had been taken by another and used without the consent of the owner, but without any intent to steal.</p> <p>2. Theft is synonymous with larceny and the intent to steal is a necessary ingredient of the offense. v</p> <p>3. In action upon a policy of insurance which indemnifies the owner of an automobile against loss or damage occasioned by theft, robbery, or pilferage by any person or persons other than those in the employment, service or household of the insured, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. It is essential to a recovery that the evidence adduced establishes that the damage to the automobile was occasioned by the taking of the same ' by some person not in the employment, service or household of the insured, without the consent of the owner, and with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his property.</p> <p>4. Where the verdict rendered by a jury is manifectly contrary to the charge of the court, to the law and to the evidence, the judgment must be reversed and a new trial awarded.</p>