
    No. 431
    MD. MOTOR CAR INS. CO. v. MEISTER
    Ohio Appeals, 8 Dist, Cuyahoga County
    647. INSURANCE — Mistakes in represen-tat'cns or warranties made to insurance com-pary held not to bar recovery on theft policy.
   Epitomized Opinion

Published Only in Ohio Law Abstract

This was an action on a theft insurance policy. One Meister took out a $2000 insurance policy on an automobile insuring the same against theft. This policy was taken out in October, 1921, and the car was stolen in January, 1922. The defendant set up many defenses including a denial that the plaintiff had performed all the conditions of the policy, and breach of warranty, or misrepresentation of fact, a failure to file a proof of loss within proper time, and that the cash value of the car was not $2000. It seems that the plaintiff had represented that the car was worth $5300. The evidence was in conflict as to whether plaintiff represented the car cost $5300 when it only cost $1500. After the plaintiff received the policy he examined it and saw that the car was insured for $5300' instead of $1500 but did not report the discrepancy to the insurance company. Moreover, there was a mistake in the model of the car, the automobile being a 1917 model instead of 1919 as stated in warranties contained in the policy. Th,e jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1000. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court, the Court of Appeals held:

It cannot be said that the verdict of the jury was manifestly against the weight of the evidence.  