Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Waldridge Hosiery Mill v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins.
Citations: 239 Ark. 47; 386 S.W.2d 938; 1965 Ark. LEXIS 924Docket: 5-3451
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; February 22, 1965; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
A lawsuit was brought by Waldridge Hosiery Mill, Inc. against Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection and Insurance Company concerning a business interruption insurance policy following damage to its boiler on October 19, 1959. The policy included a prevention of business endorsement that insured the mill against production loss due to boiler explosions, providing coverage of $200 per day up to a total limit of $20,000. After the boiler was damaged, Hartford denied liability, asserting that the business interruption was caused by fire rather than explosion, invoking two policy exclusions related to fire damage. Waldridge filed suit on October 10, 1961, seeking $2,000 for ten days of business interruption, along with statutory penalties and attorney’s fees. The trial court, acting as both judge and jury, ruled on March 6, 1964, that the damages were indeed caused by fire, falling under exclusion ‘C’ of the policy, and dismissed Waldridge’s complaint. On appeal, Waldridge argued that the insurance policy was active at the time of the incident and that Hartford did not demonstrate that the event fell under the policy exclusions. The appellate court's role was to determine if substantial evidence supported the trial court's judgment. The court noted that the parties agreed the policy was in effect and a specimen was submitted. Testimony included three witnesses: Waldridge’s president and the head of the repair firm, both asserting the damage was due to explosion, and a state boiler inspector employed by Hartford, who claimed it was caused by fire. Despite the conflicting opinions from qualified witnesses, the appellate court concluded that the trial court's judgment was supported by substantial evidence, affirming the dismissal of Waldridge’s complaint.