Nasaroff v. National Union Fire Insurance

FINCH, P. J.

The plaintiff brought this action to recover on a fire insurance policy covering buildings and furniture and fixtures, which were destroyed by fire. Judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff and the defendant has appealed.

The answer alleges that the plaintiff, with intent to defraud the defendant, caused the property to be burned.' The jury found against this defense and the appellant concedes that such finding is conclusive on appeal. The policy provides:

“Unless otherwise provided by agreement endorsed hereon or added hereto, this entire policy shall be void, ... if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership, or if the subject of insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple.”

Plaintiff’s title was acquired by a deed in which plaintiff, John Nasaroff and “Natalie Nasaroff, his wife,” are named as grantees. It appears from the evidence that the true name of the woman described in the deed as the plaintiff’s wife is Natalie Oshen, and that she was not his wife during any of the time which is material here, but that during all of that time she was the plaintiff’s housekeeper, both of them having been married and both having children, all of which children lived in the plaintiff’s home and were cared for by Mrs. Oshen. On cross-examination the plaintiff was asked: “And you have lived with this Natalie Nasaroff as your wife?” He answered: “Not as his wife.” The form of the answer is due to the fact that the plaintiff testified through an inexperienced interpreter. In the name of “Natalie Nasaroff,” Mrs. Oshen joined the plaintiff in the execution of a trust deed conveying the property in question as security for the payment of money borrowed by the plaintiff, she, being unable to write, sign

[553]

ing by her mark. The plaintiff testified that at the time he purchased the property he intended to marry Mrs. Oshen, that he paid the whole of the purchase price thereof and that “nobody else . . . ever had any interest” therein. Mrs. Oshen testified that she paid nothing for the property, that she “never accepted it from anybody as property belonging to” her, that the plaintiff never talked to her about naming her in the deed, that she never knew her name appeared therein, that she had no interest in the property, and that she and the plaintiff owned no property together.