Carpenter v. Allemannia Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 June 1893
• Docket Number: 356
• Citation: 26 A. 781,156 Pa. 37
• Parties: Carpenter v. Allemannia Fire Ins. Co., Appellant
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

26 A. 781

156 Pa. 37

Carpenter v. Allemannia Fire Ins. Co., Appellant

No. 356

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

June 7, 1893

Argued May 17, 1893

Appeal, No. 356, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Lancaster Co., Aug. T., 1891, No. 127, on verdict for plaintiff, Henry Carpenter, assignee of Joseph Bradel, to use.

Assumpsit on policy of fire insurance.

At the trial, before BRUBAKER, J., it appeared that the policy was upon the two story brick dwelling house, with slate roof, and its additions, adjoining and communicating, including foundations, porches, verandas, gas and water pipes and connections, and stationary apparatus therein, situated at Nos. 502-4 on the south side of West King street, Lancaster Pa.

A frame building adjoined and communicated with the brick dwelling and was used as a cigar factory. On Feb. 5, 1891, a portion of the brick building and all of the frame building was destroyed by fire.

The agent of the company testified that when he went to view the premises where the insurance was placed he asked the owner "Don't you want additional insurance on this frame building?" And was answered: "No, I have enough on that." Plaintiffs denied that any such conversation occurred and claimed that the policy in suit covered both buildings.

The proofs of loss were retained by the company for over a month without objection.

Defendant's points were as follows:

"1. The alleged proof of loss did not set forth the description of the property insured, and the amount of concurrent insurance in other companies appears in said alleged proof to be $2,500, which is in excess of amount allowed by policy on which recovery is sought; nor did said proof set forth amount of joint or concurrent insurance, or set forth the proportion of loss claimed from defendant." Refused. [1]

"2. If the court should hold that the plaintiff is entitled to recover, then the court is asked to charge that plaintiff can only recover one hundred dollars, the proportion claimed on the brick building." Refused. [2]

"3. There was a regular dwelling-house form used; it clearly means the attachments used for the same purposes, to wit: dwelling-house, but cannot mean a frame tobacco factory, a foreign subject." Refused. [3]

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned were (1-3) instructions, quoting them, and (4) that the verdict was against the law and evidence.

Judgment affirmed.

A.C. Reinoehl, for appellant, cited: Pottsville Co. v. Fromm, 100 Pa. 354; Ins. Co. v. Cusick, 109 Pa. 163.

John E. Malone of Steinmetz & Malone, Henry Carpenter with him, for appellee, cited: Ins. Co. v. Moyer, 97 Pa. 441; Inland Ins. Co. v. Stauffer, 33 Pa. 397; State Ins. Co. v. Todd, 83 Pa. 272; Ben Franklin Ins. Co. v. Flynn, 98 Pa. 627; Davis Shoe Co. v. ins. Co., 138 Pa. 73; Lafayette Gould v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 134 Pa. 570; Beatty v. Lycoming Co. Ins. Co., 52 Pa. 456.

Before STERRETT, C.J., GREEN, WILLIAMS, MITCHELL and DEAN, JJ.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

There appears to be nothing in either of the specifications of error that requires a reversal of the judgment. The points for charge, recited in the first three specifications respectively, were rightly refused. The remaining...