Case Title: Mah v. United States Fire Ins. Co.

Citation: 218 Kan. 583, 545 P.2d 366

Docket Number: 47,792

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1976-01-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
218 Kan. 583 (1976)
545 P.2d 366
WING MAH, Appellant,
v.
THE UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee.
No. 47,792

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed January 24, 1976.
Jerry R. Palmer, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellant.
Donald Patterson, of Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith, of Topeka, argued the cause and was on the brief for the appellee.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
MILLER, J.:
This is an action by a policyholder against an insurance company for breach of a fire and extended coverage policy, insuring his mobile home which was damaged in transit. Wing Mah, the plaintiff-appellant, is the policyholder. The United States Fire Insurance Company, defendant-appellee, wrote the policy. The trial court determined certain questions of law, and then sustained the company's motion for summary judgment. The policyholder appeals.
We are concerned here with an insuring agreement and not with an exclusion. The insuring clause on the face of the policy contains a geographic limitation. The principal problem to be *584 determined is whether this geographic limitation is applicable to the extended coverage endorsement. Plaintiff claims that the policy is ambiguous, that the limitation is inapplicable to the extended coverage endorsement, and that the trial court erred in entering summary judgment. Defendant claims that the policy is clear and unambiguous, that the geographic limitation does apply to all coverages, and that the entry of summary judgment was proper.
The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff owned a "Buddy" mobile home. While plaintiff was living in the mobile home at 1025 E-Z Avenue, Lazy Acres, Dodge City, Kansas, defendant issued its policy of fire and extended coverage insurance thereon. Later, and during the policy period, plaintiff was transferred to Topeka, Kansas. He engaged the A-1 Mobile Homes Company to move the home for him. While the home was in transit, a wheel of the towing tractor came off, struck the mobile home and inflicted extensive damage. The accident occurred on I-70 highway near its intersection with K-177 highway in Geary County, Kansas. Plaintiff made claim under the policy. Coverage was denied because "the insuring agreement excludes coverage on the trailer while it is in transit unless it is being removed from the location described in the policy ... for the purpose of protecting it against the perils insured against." This lawsuit followed.
Involved is a Standard Fire Insurance Policy. The printed caption indicates that the form is in use in 46 states  including Kansas  and the District of Columbia. The face of the policy shows the total amount of insurance to be $10,700; the premium to be $102 for fire and lightning, plus $52 for extended coverage, total $154; and it shows the amount of fire or fire and extended coverage insurance provided to be $8,700 on the mobile home and $2,000 on the contents. Under "Description and Location of Property Covered" the face of the policy recites:
The concluding paragraph on that page reads in applicable part as follows:
Attached to and forming a part of the policy is U.F. Form No. 49 (Edition Jan. '68) entitled DWELLING BUILDING (s) AND CONTENTS FORM. So far as it is here applicable, this form provides:
"DWELLING BUILDING(s) AND CONTENTS FORM
..............
"SECTION I  DESCRIPTION OF COVERAGE
"A. DWELLING COVERAGE ...
"B. PRIVATE STRUCTURES COVERAGE ...
"C. CONTENTS COVERAGE ...
"As to `Contents' 
..............
"SECTION II  PERILS INSURED AGAINST
"1. FIRE AND LIGHTNING ...
"2. REMOVAL ...
"3. INHERENT EXPLOSION ...
..............
..............
Plaintiff contends that his loss falls within the coverage provided by paragraph 7, AIRCRAFT AND VEHICLES, above; and that such coverage contains, and is subject to, no restrictive geographical requirement. We should point out that there is no contention that the loss falls within the coverage for REMOVAL FROM PREMISES ENDANGERED BY THE PERILS INSURED AGAINST. The mobile home was not being moved for any such cause.
The trial court, in a carefully prepared and comprehensive memorandum, held that the policy was not ambiguous and that it did not cover damage from vehicles unless the mobile home was located at 1025 E-Z Avenue, Lazy Acres, Dodge City, Kansas, at the time of the loss. Plaintiff contends that location is not a requisite of the extended coverage provided by the policy; defendant claims that it is. Before turning to the policy provisions, we should first review the general rules for the construction of insurance policies.
We turn now to the contract between Wing Mah and the company. The policy provides coverage for loss by fire and lightning occasioned to the mobile home while it is located on E-Z Avenue in Lazy Acres only. The policy provides no fire or lightning coverage if loss to the mobile home is sustained at some other location.
The policy also provides fire and lightning coverage to the contents. The same geographical limitation as expressed on the face of the policy is applicable to contents, subject to two exceptions which are set forth in Form 49. Household and personal property may be moved to a new location and still be covered, if the new location is occupied by the insured as his residence, and if the new location is within this state. (Section I C [1].) Further, up to 10% of the contents coverage may be applied to loss of contents occurring elsewhere than on the described premises. (Section III C.) Loss under this provision is not limited to loss by fire or lightning, and thus this section covers loss occasioned to contents under any of the extended coverages.
Extended coverage insurance is provided by virtue of a separate and additional premium. This is set forth on the face of the policy. The insuring agreements are explained and defined with particularity in Form 49. Fire and lightning, removal of the insured property from the premises when endangered, and inherent explosion are all defined. The extended coverages of windstorm and hail, explosion, riot, aircraft and vehicles and smoke are likewise explained and defined in Form 49.
Preceding all of the descriptions, definitions and explanations of Form 49, and extending across the entire top of the first page of that form, is the following paragraph:
The items covered by the policy are the mobile home and contents. The provisions of the policy include the condition that these items are insured only while located or contained as described in the policy  at 1025 E-Z Avenue, Lazy Acres, Dodge City, Kansas  unless otherwise provided. Viewing the policy in its entirety, from the "four corners", we conclude that the geographical limitation is applicable to all coverages. To hold otherwise would be to disregard the plain terms of the policy. Form 49, by the reference above set forth, includes all of the policy provisions, including the geographic limitations. The specific exceptions concerning the location of contents demonstrate the concern of the insurer as to location of the insured property.
Paragraph 7 of the extended coverage endorsements under which plaintiff makes claim contains references to "any tenant" and to "fences, driveways, walks or lawns, trees, shrubs or plants." All of such references are indicative of an intent to cover at a fixed location, where such items are present.
Appellant admits that the relevancy of geographical limitation is obvious with regard to fire and lightning, but argues that the relevancy of such limitation is not obvious with regard to the extended coverages. We cannot agree. The chance that property may sustain damage by windstorm is certainly greater in some locations than in others. Some areas are subject to high winds of hurricane origin; others are sheltered, inland locations. Loss resulting from riot would be far more likely in large metropolitan areas than in the western part of this state. And without question, loss caused by collision with a vehicle is more likely upon a heavily traveled highway than at the described location in Dodge City, Kansas.
The location of the insured property is an essential element of the description of property in an insurance policy. 43 Am.Jur.2d, Insurance, § 907, p. 864; 44 C.J.S. Insurance § 322, p. 1252. The wording "while located and contained as described herein, and not elsewhere" was originally adopted as a part of the standard fire policy to confine the risk to the described location. Deitch, The Standard Fire Policy, p. 11 (1905).
Further discussion of the relevance, materiality or importance of location of insured property is not warranted here, for the issue here is not whether the geographic limitation should be applicable, *589 but whether it is applicable under the policy terms. We hold that it is.
We conclude that the policy is not ambiguous; that the geographic limitation is applicable to the extended risk coverages; and that the trial court properly sustained defendant's motion for summary judgment.
One further matter deserves attention. Appellant contends that the trial court was in error when it failed to decide as a matter of law that K.S.A. 40-908 applies in this case. Judgment having been entered against the policyholder and in favor of the insurer, no ruling upon this question need be made.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.