C & J Fertilizer, Inc. v. Allied Mutual Ins. Co.,

227 N.W.2d. 169 (Iowa 1975)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P operated a fertilizer plant, and at the time of loss, P was insured under policies issued by defendant and titled 'BROAD FORM STOREKEEPERS POLICY' and 'MERCANTILE BURGLARY AND ROBBERY POLICY.' Each policy defined 'burglary' as meaning, '* * * the felonious abstraction of insured property (1) from within the premises by a person making felonious entry therein by actual force and violence, of which force and violence there are visible marks made by tools, explosives, electricity or chemicals upon, or physical damage to, the exterior of the premises at the place of such entry * * *.' On April 18, 1970, all exterior doors to the building were locked when P's employees left the premises at the end of the business day. The following day, Sunday, April 19, 1970, one of plaintiff's employees was at the plant and found all doors locked and secure. On Monday, April 20, 1970, when the employees reported for work, the exterior doors were locked, but the front office door was unlocked. There were truck tire tread marks visible in the mud in the driveway leading to and from the plexiglass door entrance to the warehouse. It was demonstrated this door could be forced open without leaving visible marks or physical damage. There were no visible marks on the exterior of the building made by tools, explosives, electricity or chemicals, and there was no physical damage to the exterior of the building to evidence felonious entry into the building by force and violence. Chemicals had been stored in an interior room of the warehouse. The door to this room, which had been locked, was physically damaged and carried visible marks made by tools. Chemicals had been taken in the sum of $9,582. Office and shop equipment valued at $400.30 was also taken from the building. D refused to pay. P sued D. The trial court held the policy definition of 'burglary' was unambiguous and thus it was bound to find for D. Additional evidence showed that the agent who sold the policy to P and from their investigation, the thought didn't enter their mind that this event wasn't covered. There was hard evidence of a third-party burglary vis-a-vis an 'inside job.' The latter was in this instance effectively ruled out when the thief was required to break an interior door lock to gain access to the chemicals. P appealed.