Opinion ID: 1831049
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: on demurrer to complaint

Text: Assignment of Error No. 5 asserts that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's (appellant's) demurrer to plaintiff's complaint. We will consider only those grounds that are adequately argued. Ground 2 charges that the complaint fails to state a cause of action against defendant. This ground is general and contravenes Title 7, § 236, Code of Ala.1940. See also United Insurance Company of America v. Pounders, 279 Ala. 410, 186 So.2d 125; Caffee v. Durrett, 282 Ala. 71, 209 So.2d 210; Bright v. Wynn, 210 Ala. 194, 97 So. 689(2); Ala.Dig., Vol. 2, Appeal & Error. This ground has no merit. Ground 3 of the demurrer states that the averments of the complaint are merely conclusions of the plaintiff with no facts alleged to support said averments. This ground is also general and without merit. Title 7, § 236, Code of Ala.1940, supra; Johnson v. Ralls, 286 Ala. 565, 243 So.2d 673; Central of Georgia Ry. Company v. Hinson, 262 Ala. 223, 78 So.2d 286(7). Ground 11 charges said count fails to apprise the defendant of any breach of the contract of insurance between defendant and the plaintiff; but the complaint alleges a breach of contract. Ground 12 charges that the allegations of the complaint by the plaintiff fail to apprise the defendant what the defendant is to defend. This ground is general and contravenes Title 7, § 236, Code 1940. See United Insurance Company of America v. Pounders, supra (2). Ground 13 asserts that the allegations of the complaint fail to show that there was a repudiation of the contract of insurance. The complaint alleges that on or about, to-wit, August 15, 1967, the Defendant wrongfully and tortiously and without just cause or good excuse did cancel the Plaintiff's said policy of insurance, and thereby the Defendant insurance company tortiously and wrongfully breached the same and became liable to the plaintiff for the present value thereof on the date to which the Defendant has paid its monthly payments, as required by the terms and conditions of the said policy. In Otterbein v. Babor & Comeau Co., 272 N.Y. 149, 5 N.E.2d 71, 72, it was held that cancellation of insurance contract means termination of insurance in accordance with the cancellation clause of the policy by insured, insurer or both; to cancel being `to annul or destroy; to revoke or recall.' We think that the words wrongfully    and without just cause or good excuse did cancel the plaintiff's said policy of insurance    are broad enough to import repudiation of the policy by defendant (appellant). The judgment of the trial court in overruling the demurrer was free of error as we view the argued grounds.