Commonwealth Insurance Co. v. Sennett et al.
Decision Date | 06 January 1862 |
Citation | 41 Pa. 161 |
Parties | The Commonwealth Insurance Company <I>versus</I> Sennett <I>et al.</I> |
Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Sixty-five years ago, it was decided by the Court of King's Bench that what are called preliminary proofs were conditions precedent to the right of the assured in a fire policy to recover, and the judgment was arrested because it was not alleged in the declaration that the certificate signed by the minister and churchwardens, as required in the printed proposals referred to, and incorporated into the policy, was not procured: Worsley v. Wood, 6 Term R. 710. Lord Kenyon says: "That this is a prudent regulation, this very case is sufficient to convince us; for it appears on the record that soon after the fire, the assured delivered in an account of their loss, which they said amounted to 7000l.; that they obtained a certificate from some of the reputable inhabitants that the loss did amount to that sum, and that the jury, after inquiring into all the circumstances, were of opinion that the loss did not exceed 3000l., and yet it is stated that the minister and churchwardens, who refused to certify that they believed that the loss amounted to 7000l., wrongfully, and without any reasonable or probable cause, refused to sign such certificate."
This case was reaffirmed in Mason v. Harvey, 8 Exch. 819, where it was held that the delivery of particulars of the loss sustained, within three calendar months after the fire, to the secretary or agent of the company, was a condition precedent to the right of the assured to recover for the loss. The question was raised by a special plea, which was demurred to. "Such a condition," says Chief Baron Pollock, "is in substance most reasonable; otherwise a party might lie by for four or five years after the loss, and then send in a claim, when the company perhaps had no means of investigating it." In Roper v. Lendon, 28 Law J. R. Q. B. 260, where the particulars were required to be delivered within fifteen days after the loss, Lord Campbell said:
The same doctrine prevails in this country, and is too well established to require the aid of authority. We have also adopted the rule that the whole or any part of the preliminary proofs may be waived by the insurer, and the effect of such waiver is well put by my Brother Strong, in The Inland Insurance and Deposit Company v. Stauffer, 9 Casey 404. "Surely it cannot be contended," says he,
It is clear, therefore, that the preliminary proofs only become important when made so by the conduct of the insurers, for whose security and information only are they required. If, therefore, the insurers do not object to their regularity, for they may be in strict conformity to the conditions of the policy, and yet entirely untrue, the insured cannot avail himself of his own statements to prove his own loss or the particulars of it, nor is there anything in the policy itself to vary the common law rule of evidence on this point. The insured cannot make evidence for himself, or otherwise the insurer would be entirely at the mercy of an unscrupulous man, who might easily double the actual amount of his loss.
This view of the use of preliminary proofs has always been taken in Pennsylvania. In Thurston v. Murray, 3 Binn. 326, a writing purporting to be a copy of a decree of the English Court of Appeals in admiralty cases not certified under the seal of the court, which had been lodged with the broker through whom the insurance was effected, among other documents, to prove the loss, was offered in evidence by the plaintiff. The defendant's counsel objected to the reading of this paper to the jury, but it was permitted to be read, not as evidence of the truth of the matter contained in it, but as evidence of a communication from the assured to the underwriter. "This point," said Chief Justice Tilghman, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kahn v. Traders Insurance Company
...schedule was not competent evidence of either the amount or value of the property destroyed. (Ins. Co. v. Doll, supra; Ins. Co. v. Sennett, 41 Pa. 161; Browne v. Ins. Co., 68 Mo. 133.) The testimony respecting offers of settlement made by the adjuster was inadmissible. (Richards v. Ins. Co.......
-
Union Insurance Company of California v. Barwick
... ... Wood, 6 Term R ... [Eng.], 710; Ins. Co. v. Lawrence, 2 Peters [U ... S.], 25; Gilligan v. Ins. Co., 87 N.Y. 626; ... Ins. Co. v. Sennett, 41 Pa. 161; Mueller v. Ins ... Co., 87 Id., 399; Kelly v. Sun Fire Office, 20 ... Ins. L. J. [Pa.], 407.) The pleadings alleged a performance ... ...
-
Moyer v. Sun Insurance Office of London
... ... plaintiff to recover he must prove performance: Ostrander on ... Fire Ins. 539; Com. Ins. Co. v. Sennett, 41 Pa. 161; ... Gould v. Dwelling House Ins. Co., 134 Pa. 570; ... Beatty v. Ins. Co., 66 Pa. 9; Long v ... Beeber, 106 Pa. 466; Carey v ... ...
-
Bingell v. Royal Ins. Co., Ltd.
...87 A. 955 240 Pa. 412 Bingell v. Royal Insurance Co., Ltd., Etc., Appellant Nos. 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296Supreme Court of PennsylvaniaApril 21, ... Co., 227 Pa. 120; Klein v ... Franklin Ins. Co., 13 Pa. 247; Com. Ins. Co. v ... Sennett, 41 Pa. 161; Cole v. Assurance Co., 188 ... Pa. 345; Cummins v. German American Ins. Co., 192 ... ...