Court Opinion

ID: 9734712
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:43:59.468573+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:50.778228
License: Public Domain

DISSENTING OPINION
Hoffman, C.J.
I dissent from the majority opinion.
The facts as disclosed by the record before us most favorable to appellant are as follows:
Appellant Carl J. Ebert owned and operated a feed mill and grain elevator business at two separate locations in Waterloo, Indiana. On or before October 9, 1968, Ebert entered into a verbal contract with Carl E. Feller to purchase the feed mill and grain elevator, plus the business, less accounts receivable, for $50,000, plus the inventory. An inventory was *393taken and on October 8, 1968, Feller paid for the inventory and took over the business using the grain mill and elevator until financing could be obtained. Ebert no longer participated in the business and its operation was solely for the profit and loss of Feller.
On October 23, 1968, a fire occurred at the feed mill completely destroying the mill and its contents. Feller continued to operate the elevator until the latter part of January, 1969, when Ebert sold the mill property and elevator to a third person for $20,000.
Feller was entitled to all the profits, to sustain any loses, and exclusively operated the business until the sale was consummated. Ebert was not entitled to the profits.
Ebert carried an insurance policy upon the property and was paid $21,212 for the building and equipment. Feller was paid for loss of inventory under a policy endorsement. The policy also contained a “business interruption” rider. Ebert made a claim under the “business interruption” rider in the amount of $12,500, the policy limits. The insurance company denied liability.
The question raised is whether or not Ebert had any interest in the mill and grain elevator business upon which to recover under the business interruption rider.
I agree with the majority that such rider is not ambiguous. The rider insured the loss of profits for the time the business was interrupted because of the fire. Feller was the only person who lost any profits during the business interruption because he was exclusively entitled to the profits.
The majority opinion states that Ebert sold the business (which would include the rights to any profit) to third persons and the evidence clearly demonstrates such fact.
I believe the evidence clearly shows the contrary. Ebert’s affidavit states, in pertinent part, that:
*394“8. Thereafter, this affiant [Ebert] sold the elevator property, included in said sale, on contract, for the sum of $18,000 on January 7th, 1969.
“9. Thereafter, this affiant sold the property at the corner of Center Street and Union Street for the sum of $2,000.00.”
Furthermore, Ebert made a written claim with the insurance company and also filed suit to recover loss of profits for six months. If he had sold the entire business he could claim only two months and thirteen days loss of profits.
This clearly demonstrates that Ebert sold only the real property that remained after the fire. He still retained the accounts receivable prior to the sale to Feller, and Feller retained all other rights.
The trial court correctly sustained the motion of Grain Dealers Mutual Insurance Company for summary judgment.
Note.—Reported at 303 N.E.2d 693.