Court Opinion

ID: 9768785
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:49:08.088212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:45.247779
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing
Appellant insists that we erred in holding that issues of waiver and estoppel were, presumably, tried without objection. Appel-lee testified that he informed the agent who issued the policy of the existence of a mortgage on his tractor and that the agent said it was not necessary to describe the mortgage in the policy because the mortgagee did not desire it. To the question whether appellee informed the agent of, the existence of the mortgage appellant did object on the ground that appellant had no knowledge of it; that the policy spoke for itself and “that they were trying to, recover on the policy, which shows no, mortgage.” Wheth-. er or not we were mistaken in this conclusion, we have concluded that the judgment should be affirmed.
The applicability of the exception from liability, because the mortgage was not described in the policy, was not material on a hearing of the plea of privilege. Although appellant was required to allege and prove a cause of action arid that said cause arose, at least, in part in Brown County, the applicability of this exception -from liability under the policy was not a venue issue. Appellee alleged and proved issuance of a policy on his tractor insuring him against loss by fire and that the tractor was destroyed by fire in Brown County. R.C.P. 94 provides that the burden of alleging an exception from liability in a suit on an insurance policy is upon the insurer. It provides that the insurer shall not be permitted to raise such an issue unless it specifically alleges that the loss was due to a risk or cause coming within such particular exception to general liability. Until an insurer has so alleged the insured does not now have the burden of proving the inapplicability of such an exception from liability in the policy because of waiver of such provision, estoppel to assert such a defense, or for any other reason.
Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled. ■