Elliott v. Lycoming County Mutual Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 July 1870 |
| Citation | 66 Pa. 22 |
| Parties | Elliott <I>versus</I> The Lycoming County Mutual Insurance Co. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before THOMPSON, C. J., READ, AGNEW and SHARSWOOD, JJ.
Error to the Court of Common Pleas of Blair county: No. 11, to May Term 1869.
D. J. Neff and L. W. Hall, for plaintiff in error, cited Coursin v. The Penna. Ins. Co., 10 Wright 323; The Cumberland Mut. Prot. Co. v. Mitchell, 12 Wright 374; Lycoming County Mutual Insurance Company v. Schollenberger, 8 Id. 259; Same v. Stocklomn, 3 Grant's Cases 207.
S. M. Woodcock and Scott, for defendants in error, cited Mitchell v. Lycoming Ins. Co., 1 P. F. Smith 402; Ins. Co. v. Stockbower, 2 Casey 199; Cooper v. Farmers' Mutual Ins. Co., 14 Wright 299; Angell Ins. 253 and note; Ogden v. Ash, 1 Dallas 164.
The opinion of the court was delivered, July 7th 1870, by SHARSWOOD, J.
It was decided in The Insurance Company v. Stockbower, 2 Casey 199, that when a policy of insurance provides "that the aggregate amount insured in this and other companies, on the above-mentioned property, shall not exceed two-thirds of the estimated cash value," any further insurance being in violation of the agreement renders the policy void. To the same effect is Mitchell v. The Lycoming Mutual Insurance Company 1 P. F. Smith 402. The question raised upon this record is, what is meant by the estimated cash value? Is it the estimated cash value at the time of the insurance as settled by the parties and named in the policy, or the actual cash value at the time a second or further insurance is effected? There is no serious difficulty in resolving this question. The policy upon which this suit was brought after the stating the amounts insured on the properties described, adds "Estimated cash value 1950 dollars." When therefore the same instrument in a subsequent part speaks of the estimated cash value it must be held in all fairness to refer to the sum before named as much so as if it had been expressed. Nor can it alter the contract that the insured afterwards made improvements, which greatly augmented the actual cash value, and that the company had notice of these alterations and endorsed a certificate that the risk was not thereby increased. The contract still remained unchanged. The estimated cash value by which the insured agreed to be governed in procuring other insurances was still the same. Both parties must agree to another estimate; and if the estimate named in the policy was not the criterion, then there was none. There is no authority at law or in equity to reform the contract by substituting "actual" for "estimated." The estimate was one in which the company had concurred, and by which they were therefore bound. They did not concur in any other estimate, which the insured might put upon it, or which a jury might subsequently agree upon. The plaintiff, before obtaining an additional insurance, ought to have procured the estimated cash value in the policy to be changed and made to conform to the actual augmented value in consequence of his improvements. It is unfortunate that he neglected to take this simple precaution, but having failed to do so, it is not in the power of chancellor or jury to help him.
It is stoutly maintained,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Co. Lane v. Parsons, Rich & Co. (In re Millers)
...339, 22 Sup. Ct. 133, 144, 46 L. Ed. 213, the court quoted the following language of Justice Sharswood from Elliott v. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co., 66 Pa. 22, 5 Am. Rep. 323: ‘Undoubtedly, if the company, after notice or knowledge of the over insurance, treated the contract as subsisting ......
-
St. Louis Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Witney
...at page 817. "* * * estoppel * * * is the true ground upon which the doctrine of waiver in such cases rests." Elliott v. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co., 66 Pa. 22, at page 26. Waiver is the voluntary relinquishment of a known right. Estoppel rests upon the misleading conduct of one party to ......
-
Mikesell v. Mikesell
... ... National Mut. Aid Assn., 94 Pa ... 481; Hamilton v. Ins. Co., 5 Pa. 339; Equitable ... Life Assurance Society v ... standing of the Locomotive Engineers Mutual Life and Accident ... Insurance Company, a corporation ... given it, as is said by Sharswood, J., in Elliott v. Ins ... Co., 66 Pa. 22. It waives the benefit of no ... ...
-
Aetna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Jeremiah
...Ins. Co., 122 W.Va. 333, 9 S.E.2d 229; Roberts v. London & Lancashire Ins. Co., 282 Ky. 679, 139 S.W.2d 764; Elliott v. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co., 66 Pa. 22, 5 Am.Rep. 323; Mitchell v. Lycoming County Mut. Ins. Co., 51 Pa. 402." The terms of the policies prohibited additional insurance ......