Court Opinion

ID: 9830321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 20:06:29.029282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:19.083403
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[5] By motion for rehearing it is insisted that this court’s former judgment affirming the judgment below in this cause was error, and that the first and second assignments of error presented in appellant’s brief should have been sustained. But we think these assignments were properly overruled, and for this additional reason: As stated in the original opinion, the complaint thereby made was against the trial court’s action in not sustaining a special exception to appellees’ petition and in refusing a requested peremptory instruction to find in favor of the insurance company, upon the alleged ground that it appeared from the face of the petition that the terms of the policy sued upon had not been complied with, in that suit thereon had been brought sooner than 60 days after the furnishing of proofs of loss, contrary to its express provisions. A complete answer to this contention is that the petition did not so show; upon the contrary, after declaring upon the policy, alleging the loss by fire, and attaching an inventory of the destroyed property, the pleading continued:
“Plaintiff further alleges that in due time after said fire occurred she furnished defendant proof of her said loss by said fire and demanded payment of said sum of $1,500 due her by and under the terms and conditions of said policy, and that the defendant has wholly failed to pay the same or any other amount, to her total damage in the sum of $1,500.”
Nor was there elsewhere in the face of the petition any indication whatever that it was prematurely filed. It was therefore good as against the special exception leveled at it. If appellant had sought dismissal through plea in abatement properly raising the issue of premature bringing of the suit, a different situation would have been presented.
The motion for rehearing is accordingly overruled.