Hope Mutual Insurance Company v. Brolaskey
| Decision Date | 01 January 1860 |
| Citation | 35 Pa. 282 |
| Parties | Hope Mutual Insurance Co. versus Brolaskey. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
W. S. Price, for the plaintiffs in error.—Brolaskey was bound, by the general law of insurance, to disclose his true interest in the premises, and must be regarded as having concealed material facts: 1. Because, if he had disclosed that interest, he would thereby have disclosed an increase of risk, and the company would not have insured for him: 2. Because premiums of insurance are always enhanced by the fact, that the building is erected upon ground held under a lease only: 3. Because the insurance was being effected in a mutual insurance company: Columbia Insurance Company v. Lawrence, 2 Pet. 25; s. c. 10 Id. 507; Carpenter v. American Insurance Company, 1 Story 57; Smith v. Columbia Insurance Company, 5 Harris 253; Angell on Insurance, § 175; Marshall v. Columbia Mutual Insurance Company, 7 Foster (N. H.) 157; Leathers v. Insurance Company, 4 Id. 259; Smith v. Bowditch Mutual Insurance Company, 6 Cush. 448; Wall v. East River Mutual Insurance Company, 3 Seld. 370; Hayward v. Insurance Company, 10 Cush. 444, 446.
J. Murray Rush, for the defendant in error, cited Fletcher v Commonwealth Insurance Company, 18 Pick. 419; Tyler v. Ætna Insurance Company, 12 Wend. 507; 16 Id. 385; 1 Sandf. S. C. Rep. 551; Strong v. Manufacturers' Insurance Company, 10 Pick. 40; Delahay v. Memphis Insurance Company, 8 Humph. 684; Wells v. Philadelphia Insurance Company, 9 S. & R. 103; Miltenberger v. Beacom, 9 Barr 199; Russell v. Union Insurance Company, 1 W. C. C. 409; Hammond on Insurance 22; Curry v. Commonwealth Insurance Company, 10 Pick. 135; Marcy v. Darling, 8 Id. 283; Doty v. Gorham, 5 Id. 287; Laurent v. Chatham Fire Insurance Company, 1 Hall 41.
If this were a case of mutual insurance, whereby the insured becomes a member of the company and pledges his property to secure that of others, there would be some reason for holding it to mean that a house, insured as a house, is real estate; and we suppose that the clause out of which this controversy arises was intended for such a case.
But this was a common insurance, and we must presume that it was taken in the ordinary way, and justice does not require us to strain the defendants' language in their policy for their benefit. A house may be, and often is, personal property: 5 Pick. 487; 8 Id. 283; 1 Hall 41; 3 Casey 291; and so is machinery in a mill, 8 Harris 303; and so was the house insured here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Yost v. McKee
... ... John D. McKee et al., and Dwelling House Insurance Company, Garnishee and Appellant No. 89Supreme Court of ... 300; ... Chandler v. Commerce Ins. Co., 88 Pa. 223; Hope ... Mut. Ins. Co. v. Brolaskey, 35 Pa. 282; Susquehanna ... ...
-
Bernhardt v. Boeuf & Berger Mut. Ins. Co.
...419; Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Gatewood, 10 Ky.Law Rep. 117; Southern Ins. & Trust Co. v. Lewis & Brothers, 42 Ga. 587; Hope Mutual Ins. Co. v. Brolaskey, 35 Pa. 282; Allen v. Sun Mutual Ins. Co., 36 La.Ann. 767, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 429, note; Joyce on Insurance, Vol. 2, par. 961a; 26 C.J. We ......
-
Fowle v. Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Co.
...a true statement of his interest, although he had assigned the mortgage, and might not be called upon to pay his note. In Hope Ins. Co. v. Brolaskey, 35 Pa. 282, policy contained a similar clause. The buildings insured stood upon leased land, and the insured had a right to remove them at th......