Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. CASIMIR
V. CWIKLINSKI, Judge, presiding. Judgment affirmed.
MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE KILEY DELIVERED THE OPINION OF THE COURT.
This is a suit seeking indemnity against an inventory loss allegedly suffered through burglary, or fraud or dishonesty of plaintiff's employees. Verdict and judgment were for plaintiff in the amount of $2,486.51. Defendant has appealed from the judgment. Plaintiff has cross-appealed from an order denying attorney's fees.
On November 20, 1951, defendant issued its Mercantile Open Stock Policy, and on January 28, 1952 its Blanket Position Bond No. 2418288 to plaintiff. Count 1 of the complaint seeks to recover on the policy; count 2 on the bond.
The policy indemnifies against ". . . all loss of merchandise . . . by burglary, which shall mean the felonious abstraction . . . from within the premises by . . . felonious entry . . . by actual force . . . of which there shall be visible marks made upon the exterior of the premises . . . as evidence . . . [of] actual force. . . ." For the reasons given hereinafter, we need not set out the provisions of the bond.
The answer denied the alleged burglary in count 1; the alleged fraud or dishonesty in count 2; proof of loss; and failure to pay the indemnity.
Defendant argues that there was no evidence to take the case to the jury on either count of the complaint. We agree that there was no evidence that plaintiff's goods were stolen by plaintiff's employees. Count 2 should not have gone to the jury.
There is evidence, however, that sometime after the closing of the foundry on the evening of February 23, and before its opening the next morning the goods were stolen. This was not disputed at the trial. Defendant contends only that, admitting the theft, there is no competent evidence of "visible marks upon the exterior of the premises . . . as evidence . . . [of] actual force. . . ." The contention has no merit.
[2-4] There is evidence that the only window had been "jimmied" and the window sill bore scratch "marks" and "notches"; that the sill was "broken" and there were "jimmy marks on the sill," "smudge marks on the window" and "chips off the sill"; that a rear door had been broken out, the bar on the inside of the back door was off; that the only way into the rear of the factory premises was over a high wooden fence or through a door in the fence; and that the padlock on the inside of the door had been broken off. There is some evidence of visible marks on the premises pointing to actual force in the burglary and this evidence justified submitting the question to the jury. There is no merit in defendant's contention that the inside of the rear fence was not an exterior of the premises. The term premises has various meanings depending on the subject matter in connection with which it is used. Gibbons v. Brandt, 170 F.2d 385; 72 C.J.S. 484. It is the word of the insurer and construing it favorably to the insured the exterior fence is part of the premises and the inside of the fence an exterior. American Ins. Co. v. Meyers, 118 Ill. App. 484, 488.
We see no necessity for distinguishing cases cited by defendant from foreign jurisdictions. We shall discuss Illinois cases they cite. In Abt v. National Surety Co., 230 Ill. App. 242, the policy was more restricted than the one before us. There had to be proof of the visible marks made by tools or explosives on the premises. There was no such proof. In Wakem & McLaughlin, Inc. v. Royal Indemnity Co., 241 Ill. App. 427, the policy was less restricted than the Abt policy but it was more restricted than the instant policy. The only evidence of visible marks made by "tools" was inside of the premises. Neither of these cases is helpful here.
The contention that the verdict is against the manifest weight of the evidence is without merit.
In opening argument plaintiff's attorney told the jury that plaintiff was covered by the policy and the bond so that "if . . . it was not a burglary it must have been an inside job by one of the employees in which event also the insurance company is liable." Defendant's motions for directed verdict and to dismiss count 2 were denied.
We have pointed out that the court erred in submitting count 2 to the jury. The question is whether the error is prejudicial. Defendant concedes that one good count is ordinarily sufficient to support a general verdict, but contends that submitting a count where there is no evidence to support it and where an argument is made to the jury on that count is prejudicial error.
The Supreme Court in Greene v. Noonan, 372 Ill. 286, decided there was reversible error in refusing to withdraw a wilful and wanton count from the jury where there was no evidence to support it and no instruction that the jury was not to consider that count. The reasons given were (a) that the nature of the charge itself, although not proven, might influence the jury and (b) the rule that where there is one count the gist of which is malice together with another based on negligence only and the verdict is general then the presumption is that the verdict is on the malice count. The decision in Wilmington Star Mining Co. v. Fulton, 205 U.S. 60, is consistent with the Illinois rule stated in Greene v. Noonan, 372 Ill. 286. There was no evidence in the Fulton case under a wilful and wanton count and a general verdict was returned. Under the Illinois rule the error in refusing to withdraw the count would have been prejudicial.
In Borrowdale v. Sugarman, 347 Ill. App. 390, 396, we stated that the "principle" announced in Greene v. Noonan, applied to require reversal. That statement must be considered as applying the principle that where prejudice is likely to result from the error a judgment will be reversed. For in Borrowdale there was no evidence to sustain a quantum meruit count and at page 397 we concluded that since the quantum meruit count and an express contract count were mutually exclusive, prejudice was likely to result because ...