Cumberland Valley Mutual Protection Company v. Schell
| Decision Date | 01 January 1857 |
| Citation | 29 Pa. 31 |
| Parties | Cumberland Valley Mutual Protection Company versus Schell. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
S. S. & D. W. Woods, for plaintiff in error.
Elder, for defendant in error.
When a risk is estimated, and taken on the faith of representations made by the insured, it is plain good sense that dictates the law requiring that his representations shall truly and completely express his knowledge of the dangers to which the property is exposed, and that avoids the contract if they do not. This must be so, else a contract of indemnity against one character of hazard is changed so as to protect against a different one.
But insurers are not always dependent upon the representations of the insured for the character of the risk, and they may make their contracts on their own knowledge of it; and then we do not look for representations, for they are entirely out of place; though there might, even then, be a withholding of information of circumstances plainly tending to increase the risk, which would avoid the contract, because incompatible with good faith.
In fire insurances, it has become so common to have the property examined and described by an agent of the insurers before making the contract, that we cannot presume that an application, which, like this one, merely individuates the property, is intended as a representation of the hazards to which it is exposed. In this case, certainly, there are no representations of the value or of the hazards, for the whole application, on which the contract was founded, was drawn up by the agent of the company, and it is reasonable to say that every word of description in it, is used merely to individuate the property. Evidently it was not intended to describe the hazards, nor could it have been so received; for neither the use nor the material of the adjoining houses is given, nor anything like an adequate specification of the use and internal structure of the houses insured. The use of one of them is mentioned, another is called a stable, and the use of two others may be guessed at from the kind of personal property insured in them. Surely no risk was ever taken on such representations. There being, therefore, no representations properly so called, there could be no error in the court in giving such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Public Fire Ins. Co. v. Crumpton
... ... Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiffs, and defendant ... 459, 21 Am. Dec. 686; Adair v. Sou. Mutual Ins ... Co., 107 Ga. 297, 33 S.E. 78, 45 L. R ... Co., 22 A.D. 380, 49 ... N.Y.S. 184; Cumberland Valley, etc., Co. v. Schell, ... 29 Pa. 31; ... ...
-
Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Turley
... ... against the Germania Fire Insurance Company ... Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant ... Wait, 37 Barb. (N. Y.) 29; ... German Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Fox, 4 Neb. (Unof.) ... 833, 96 ... property to the protection of the policy. In a footnote to ... the opinion ... 56 N. J. Law, 235, 28 A. 8; Cumb. Valley, etc., Ins. Co ... v. Schell, 29 Pa. 31; Mutual ... ...
-
Western Home Ins. Co. v. Thorp
... ... 239 THE WESTERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY v. LEXCINA C. THORP Supreme Court of ... 570; Insurance Co ... v. Schell, 29 Pa. 31.) The plaintiff does not in terms ... ...
-
Gardull v. Royal Ins. Co., Ltd.
... ... Royal Insurance Company, Ltd No. 197-1938Superior Court of ... Horace ... Michener Schell, for appellee ... Before ... Keller, ... admissible. 26 C. J. p. 536, § 750; Cumberland ... Valley Mutual Protection Co. v. Schell, 29 ... ...