Cummins v. German American Insurance Company of New York

• Decision Date: 11 July 1900
• Docket Number: 8
• Citation: 197 Pa. 61,46 A. 902
• Parties: Cummins v. German American Insurance Company of New York
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

46 A. 902

197 Pa. 61

Cummins v. German American Insurance Company of New York

No. 8

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

July 11, 1900

Argued April 17, 1900

Appeal, No. 8, Jan. T., 1900, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Huntingdon Co., Feb. T., 1898, No. 18, on verdict for plaintiff, in case of S.W. Cummins v. German American Insurance Company of New York. Affirmed.

Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before BAILEY, P.J.

The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court admitted under objection and exception proofs of loss including the letter of November 12, 1897, quoted in the opinion of the Supreme Court. [1]

When plaintiff was on the stand he was asked this question:

"Q. You say Mr. Oaks was the local agent that took this insurance? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you say to Mr. Oaks about these sheds being attached to the barn immediately before you obtained the policy and at the time you made the contract with him for the policy?"

Mr Woods: Objection, on the ground that whatever the conversations were between the witness and Mr. Oaks were reduced to writing and are in the terms of the policy, and any other conversations that are not in the terms of this policy not being left out by accident, fraud or mistake, they cannot be added now.

The Court: Objection overruled. Evidence received. Bill of exceptions sealed for defendant. [2]

"Q. (Judge Furst): Now state, Mr. Cummins, what you said to the agent at the time at which this policy was applied for with reference to having these sheds insured. Just what you said and what Mr. Oaks said to you. A. I explained to him just how these buildings were situated and also the policy I had on my buildings. I took $200 off the house."

Objection.

"(continued): A. I explained how these buildings were situated and how attached to the barn, and he assured me this policy covered the sheds. Q. What sheds did your policy cover? A. These two sheds; they were all the sheds there; there were no other sheds -- Q. Are there any other sheds attached to the barn? A. No, sir; no other sheds near the barn."

Cross examination:

"Q. (Mr. Woods): Did you tell him there was a driveway between the sheds and the barn? A. Yes, sir; I explained just how they were situated. Q. Did you tell him there was a driveway fourteen feet wide? A. I don't recollect whether I told him the distance. Q. Did you tell him they were only attached by bars? A. Yes, sir; I told him how they were attached; I don't know that I told him the distance. Q. Did you tell him the size of the sheds? A. Yes, sir. Q. That one was a large building? A. It was not a large building. Q. Thirty feet long? A. Yes, sir; fifteen feet wide. The loft held two loads of hay; it is not a very large building. Q. You say you told him? A. Yes, sir. Q. Did you tell him about the corncrib and wagon shed? A. No, sir; they were not near the barn; not near enough to burn from the barn. Q. How far were they off? I suppose fifty to sixty feet; somewhere along there."

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $1,562.61. Defendant appealed.

Errors assigned among others were (1, 2) rulings on evidence, quoting the bill of exceptions.

The record in this case is entirely free from error. It was carefully and properly tried by the learned trial judge in the court below, and the jury, having been intelligently instructed, found against this appellant, which has come before us with no just cause of complaint. The assignments of error are all overruled and the judgment is affirmed.

W. H. Woods, for appellant. -- It was the duty of the insured to furnish sufficient proofs of loss: Langan v. Royal Ins. Co., 162 Pa. 357.

A. O. Furst, with him J. D. Dorris, for appellee. -- Where there is a total destruction of the property, such as in this case, and immediate notice has been given the company, there is no necessity for any other or specific proof of loss: Penna. Fire Ins. Co. v. Dougherty, 102 Pa. 568.

The company was estopped from alleging at the trial any insufficiency of proof of loss: Gould v. Dwelling-House Ins. Co., 134 Pa. 588; Moyer v. Sun Ins. Co., 176 Pa. 579.

Before GREEN, C.J., McCOLLUM, DEAN, BROWN and MESTREZAT, JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE BROWN:

The German American Insurance Company of New York issued its policy of insurance to S.W. Cummins on January 6, 1896, on his barn and the sheds and additions attached thereto, situated in Jackson township, Huntingdon county. The amount of the insurance was $1,400. On September 16, 1897, the barn, together with the sheep and hog pens, was totally destroyed by fire. Immediate notice of the loss was given to the company, and, on October 16, 1897, the assured, upon demand by the former, furnished it a statement of the property destroyed and its value. This proof of loss was not satisfactory to the appellant, and, on November 1, 1897, Cummins was notified to furnish it "verified plans and specifications of the building in accordance with the conditions of the contract, . . . and . . . a detailed account of lumber, etc., used in the construction of this barn and the prices paid therefor." On November 12, 1897, the assured in response to the demand so made upon him on the first of the month, sent an additional proof of loss to the company, his letter enclosing the same being as follows:

"HUNTINGDON PA., November 12, 1897.

"Mr. GEO. J. McCAFFREY,

"Adjuster, The German American Ins. Co. of N.Y.

"21 So. Holliday St., Baltimore, Md.

"Dear Sir. Your letter of 1st inst. to my attorneys, Furst &amp Dorris, was misdirected and went to Philada., Pa., instead of to Huntingdon, Pa., so that it did not reach them until the 9th inst. The barn on my farm, which was totally destroyed by fire, as stated in the formal 'Proof of Loss' already furnished your company, had been built a number of years when I purchased the farm in the fall of 1892. I do not know when the barn was built, or by whom, and it is therefore impossible for me to give you verified plans and specifications in detail with prices. I enclose herewith a verified statement of the size, arrangement and condition of the barn at the time of the fire, as nearly as I can do...