Edwards v. Insurance Co.

• Decision Date: 09 March 1874
• Citation: 75 Pa. 378
• Parties: Edwards <I>versus</I> The Lycoming County Mutual Insurance Company.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

75 Pa. 378

Edwards versus The Lycoming County Mutual Insurance Company.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

March 3, 1874.

March 9, 1874.

March 3d 1874.

Before AGNEW, C. J., SHARSWOOD, MERCUR and GORDON, JJ. WILLIAMS, J., at Nisi Prius

Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Schuykill county: No. 195 to January Term 1872.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

A. W. Schalk, for plaintiff in error.—"Forthwith" in the policy means with due diligence, and whether that has been used is for the jury: Edwards v. Baltimore Insurance Company, 3 Gill (Md.) 176; Wetherell v. Maine Insurance Company, 49 Maine 200; Peoria Insurance Company v. Lewis, 18 Ill. 553; Inman v. Western Insurance Company, 12 Wendell 452; Connell v. Leroy, 9 Id. 166; Insurance Company v. Updegraff, 7 Wright 359. Notice may be given through the local agent: West Branch Insurance Co. v. Helfenstein, 4 Wright 298.

J. A. Hazen and B. W. Cumming, for defendants in error.— Cited Inland Insurance Co. v. Stauffer, 9 Casey 397; Trask v. State Fire & Marine Insurance Co., 5 Casey 198; Owen v. Joint Stock Insurance Co., 57 Barbour 518; Flanders on Fire Insurance 528; Commonwealth Insurance Co., v. Sennett, 5 Wright 161; Lycoming Insurance Company v. Beatty, 16 P. F. Smith 9.

The judgment was rendered in the Supreme Court, March 9th 1874.

PER CURIAM.

This case is ruled by Trask v. Insurance Company, 5 Casey 198. That case was much stronger in its circumstances in favor of the assured than this. It might have been well said there that the parties to the policy treated the notice as in time; but eleven days there being held to be too long, and the circumstances not to excuse the delay, we cannot, without disregarding the wholesome maxim, stare decisis, say that eighteen days in this case are a reasonable time within the provision of the policy, that, on a loss happening, the "insured shall forthwith give notice thereof to the secretary." Hazen, the local agent, had no authority to receive the notice, and was not bound to communicate it to the company. He was not even requested by the attorney, who informed him, to give the notice. This rule of the company should receive a reasonable interpretation to mean as requiring due diligence under all the circumstances; that there should be no laches or unreasonable delay, and in this respect Trask v. Insurance Company seems to have been somewhat harsh. This case, however, has not the same extenuating circumstances, and we must abide by the ruling in that case.

...