Case Title: Nelson v. Home Ins. Co.

Citation: 353 So. 2d 763

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1977-12-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
353 So. 2d 763 (1977) Robert A. NELSON v. HOME INSURANCE COMPANY. No. 49748. Supreme Court of Mississippi. December 14, 1977. *764 Fred A. Ross, Jr., Jackson, for appellant. Watkins & Eager, James L. Carroll, Michael W. Ulmer, Thomas M. Murphree, Jr., Jackson, for appellee. Before PATTERSON, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ. ROBERTSON, Justice for the Court. Robert Nelson brought suit on a contract of insurance against the Home Insurance Company in the County Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, to recover the value of two guns allegedly stolen from him. After Nelson rested, Home moved for a directed verdict, which motion was sustained by the county court. The court based its decision on Nelson's failure to prove the actual value of the two guns at the time of the theft. Before the court ruled on the motion, Nelson moved to reopen for the purpose of proving the actual value of the two guns stolen. The county court overruled plaintiff's motion to reopen. Nelson appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the judgment of the county court. Nelson appeals, assigning as error: Accompanied by Frank Schlosser Jr. and Paschal Townsend, Nelson flew to Chicago on March 21, 1975, on a business-pleasure trip. He rented a two-door Ford Granada. On March 23rd, after participating in a gun-shooting contest and eating supper thereafter, the three of them returned to their motel room about 11:00 p.m. The testimony of Nelson, Schlosser and Townsend was that the two doors of the car were locked. Nelson left his two-gun case containing a Winchester Model 21, Custom Grade, Double Barrel Shotgun, and an Aproxy (Perazzi) MX8 over-under Trap Gun, made in Italy, on the floorboard of the car between the front and back seats. About 8:30 the next morning, when they went out to the car, Schlosser noticed that the right door was unlocked and the guns were missing. While the right door was unlocked the left door was still locked. The police were called and one policeman came out to investigate. The investigating officer commented that he could find no evidence of forcible entry. The only evidence of forcible entry discovered by Nelson, Schlosser and Townsend was a scratch on the rubber trim around the window of the door. One witness testified that this scratch was on the trim around the left door, another that it was on the trim around the right door. *765 When Nelson returned to Jackson, he notified Home Insurance Company of his loss. Home denied liability because the police report listed no visible evidence of forcible entry as required by the following provision of the insurance policy: At the trial on March 16, 1976, Nelson testified that he had paid $2600 for the Winchester Model 21, but that the list price today was around $3750. He testified that he paid $1400 for the Italian gun, but that the replacement cost today was $1995. As to value of the property lost or stolen, the policy provided: There was no testimony as to "the actual cash value" of these two guns "at the time" they were stolen. Home's motion for a directed verdict was based on these two grounds: (1) That there was no visible evidence of forcible or violent entry, and (2) That there was no evidence of the actual cash value of the guns at the time of the loss. The court, in ruling on the motion for a directed verdict, stated that he was not concerned with the lack of evidence of forcible entry because "they [thieves] are so professional they can just barely touch an automobile and get in it". We are inclined to agree with this observation of the lower court. The court further commented: "My only concern right now is whether or not counsel may reopen". The court then overruled plaintiff's motion to reopen for the limited purpose of establishing the value of the guns at the time of the theft and sustained the motion for a directed verdict on the ground that the actual cash value at the time of the loss had not been proved. We think the county court was in error in overruling the plaintiff's motion to reopen his case for the limited purpose of proving the actual cash value of the guns at the time of the theft. In Marshall v. Oliver Electric Manufacturing Company, 235 So. 2d 244 (Miss. 1970), this Court said: We are of the opinion that the county court should have allowed the plaintiff to reopen his case to prove the actual cash value of the two guns at the time of the loss. The judgment of the circuit court, affirming the judgment of the county court, is, therefore, reversed and this cause remanded for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED. PATTERSON, C.J., INZER and SMITH, P. JJ., and SUGG, WALKER, BROOM, LEE and BOWLING, JJ., concur.