Insurance — Burglary insurance — Policy — Terms — Interpretation.
A burglary insurance policy indemnified the insured against loss obtained in the abstraction of money or valuables from any safe mentioned in the policy, "by entry in the said safe by actual force or violence, of which force or violence there should be visible marks made on the said safe by tools, explosives, electricity or chemicals."
In an action to recover insurance it appeared that the safe, from which the money had been taken, had been moved from its original location in the office, and that the metallic cover of the inner lock was found lying in front of the safe, and that an ornamental knob which had nothing to do with the mechanism of the lock was also detached.
Under such circumstances, judgment non obstante veredicto in favor of the defendant will be affirmed.
There was no evidence to establish an entry into the safe by actual force and violence. The fact that the door stood partly open indicated nothing as to how the entry was made, whether by actual force or violence in which tools, explosives, electricity or chemicals were used. The presence on the floor of the metallic cover and screws which held it in place did not show that the entry was made by force and violence, because they could not have been removed from the inner face of the door until after the entry had been accomplished. All of these facts are consistent with an entry without such force and violence as was contemplated in the policy. The policy being one of limited liability to recover under it, the plaintiff must show that a loss was suffered in the manner and under the circumstances against which he was insured.
Argued October 19, 1925.
PER CURIAM, December 14, 1925:
The opinion of Judge GORDON, stating the grounds upon which judgment was entered in favor of the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, fully vindicates the conclusion at which he arrived.
The judgment is affirmed.