Case ID: mich-app_13/html/0648-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam..", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WARD v. EMPLOYER’S FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
    Witnesses — -Expert Witness — Opinion Testimony — Appeal and Error — Objection—Preserving Question.
    Plaintiff’s objections to testimony by witness called as an expert by defendant in an aetion to recover on an insurance policy on the ground that the witness was not sufficiently qualified will not be considered by the Court of Appeals where plaintiff failed to objeet to the testimony at trial.
    Reference for Points in Headnote
    5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 545 et seq.
    
    Appeal from Kent, Letts (JohnT.), J.
    Submitted Division 3 October 9, 1968, at Grand Rapids.
    (Docket No. 3,805.)
    Decided October 22, 1968.
    Leave to appeal denied January 15, 1969.
    See 381 Mich 796.
    Complaint by Paul A. Ward and Constance C. Ward against Employer’s Fire Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, to recover on a policy of insurance. Yerdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals.
    Affirmed.
    
      Himelstein & Ward (James D. Lovewell, of counsel) , for plaintiff.
    
      Cholette, Perlcins & Buchanan (Sherman H. Cone, of counsel), for defendant.
   Per Curiam..

This is an appeal from a jury verdict of no cause of action in a suit brought by plaintiffs under a home owner’s policy insuring a steam boiler heating system against loss due to “sudden and accidental tearing asunder, cracking, burning, or bulging of a heating or hot water heating system.”

Plaintiffs object primarily to the opinion testimony of defendant’s expert witness that the damage to plaintiffs’ boiler was not sudden or accidental but “was caused by erosion or corrosion over a gradual period of time” and further, that initial leakage of the boiler would dissipate and escape as steam through the exhaust stack rendering it difficult to detect. This testimony was not objected to by plaintiffs at the time of trial and the Court finds no merit in plaintiffs’ claim on appeal that defendant’s expert was not properly qualified.

As to plaintiffs’ other claims of error raised on appeal relative to admissibility of a photograph of the damaged boiler, improper instructions of the court to the jury and admonishment of plaintiffs’ counsel, review by this Court discloses no prejudicial error on the part of the trial court.

Affirmed. Costs to appellee.

Lesinski, C. J., and Fitzgerald and Templin, JJ., concurred.