An insured’s entire collection of guns was stolen. His "shooting guns," consisting of 47 guns in all, were scheduled under an Inland Marine Floater policy with a Gun Floater form attached, the total amount of insurance being in excess of $15,000. His "collector guns," numbering 16 guns, were scheduled under a second policy of a similar nature with a total amount of insurance of $4,808 indicated. He said he had obtained the "amount of insurance" for each gun by consulting a gun digest according to instructions from the insurer’s agent, having applied for the insurance after reading an ad in a gun magazine. (Apparently bills of sale or written appraisals were not involved.)

The insured made claim for the face amount of both policies and submitted proofs of loss listing the guns and values identically as shown in the policy schedules. The insurer rejected the proofs as unsatisfactory, after a lengthy investigation. He filed suit against the insurer and was awarded a judgment of $4,000 for his "shooting guns" and one of $480 for his "collector guns." The insurer had not rejected the insured’s claim on the basis of fraud and misrepresentation, but it did introduce evidence intended to cast doubt upon whether the insured owned the number of guns listed in the schedules. The insured appealed from the judgment in his favor, seeding to recover the total amount claimed.

Each policy consisted of a standard Inland Marine Floater policy with the Gun Floater form attached. The basic policy stated, with respect to valuation, that the company would not be liable beyond actual cash value of property at time of loss, not to exceed cost of repair or replacement with material of like kind and quality.

However, the attachment stated: "All clauses, conditions and warranties in the printed portions of the policy in conflict with the terms of this special form are waived." The attached form provided: "This company shall be liable for the full repair or replacement cost of the property insured without deduction for depreciation but in no event to exceed the amount of insurance applying thereto." The court determined that the attached form would be controlling.

There was discussion as to whether or not the policies ere "valued policies" under Missouri statute. But the court said that it was unnecessary to make a statutory interpretation because "the policies themselves are determinative of the amount plaintiff may recover." It concluded that purchase price or market value was of no relevance in the case. The insurer could have invoked the replacement option, but it did not. Otherwise, the contract showed an intent to pay "the amount the insurance company has agreed is the value and for which it has charged a premium." A new trial was ordered.

Huth, Plaintiff, Appellant v. General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Ltd., Defendant, Respondent. Missouri Court of Appeals, St. Louis District. No. 36076. Filed April 13, 1976. CCH 1976 Fire and Casualty Cases 38. (PF&M Court Cases – July, 1976)