Kiefer v. Girard Fire & Marine Ins.
| Citation | 285 Pa. 589,132 A. 706 |
| Parties | KIEFER v. GIRARD FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. OF PHILADELPHIA. |
| Decision Date | 15 March 1926 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania |
285 Pa. 589
KIEFER
v.
GIRARD FIRE & MARINE INS.
CO. OF PHILADELPHIA.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
March 15, 1926.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Northampton County; Robert A. Stotz, Judge.
Action by George W. Kiefer against the Girard Fire & Marine Insurance Company of Philadelphia. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before MOSCHZISKER, C. J., and FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER, and SCHAFFER, JJ.
J. W. Paff (of Smith & Paff), of Easton, for appellant.
Franklin E. Barr and Horace Michener Schell, both of Philadelphia, and William Kirkpatrick (of Kirkpatrick & Maxwell), of Easton, for appellee.
SCHAFFER, J. Plaintiff insured his automobile in defendant company against loss by fire in the sum of $3,500. It was burned up, and, the company refusing to pay the loss, this action was brought on the policy. On trial the court gave binding instructions for defendant, and, from the resulting judgment in its favor, plaintiff appeals.
The policy contains these provisions:
"Warranties. The following are statements of facts known to and warranted by the assured to be true, and this policy is issued by the company relying upon the truth thereof. * * * The facts with respect to the purchase of the automobile described are as follows: Purchased by the assured. Actual cost to assured including equipment $4,350."
Under cross-examination, plaintiff admitted that he had actually paid for the car but $2,650; $1,150 in cash, and an allowance of $1,500 received on another car which he turned in to the seller. It is therefore apparent that his warranty as to the price he paid for the car was false. This being so, he cannot recover. Commonwealth Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Huntzinger, 98 Pa. 41; Home Mutual Life Ass'n of Pa. v. Gillespie, 1 A. 340, 110 Pa. 84; Miller v. National Casualty Co., 62 Pa. Super. Ct. 417; Benvenuto v. Central Manufacturers' Mutual Ins. Co., 80 Pa. Super. Ct. 213; Puro v. Franklin Fire Ins. Co., 83 Pa. Super. Ct 164; Skruch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 131 A. 186, 284 Pa. 299.
Appellant seeks to avoid the effect of the admittedly false warranty by an offer of testimony tending to show that he was misled into the statement as to the cost of the car by the agent of defendant, who negotiated the insurance, and who filled in the application, for the policy. This testimony the trial judge properly excluded under the authorities heretofore cited.
"When there has been no fraud or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Nix
...... apparent that appellee's warranty as to the price he paid. for the car was false. This being so, he cannot recover. . . Kiefer. v. Girard Fire, etc. , Ins. Co., 132 A. 706; Benvenuto v. Central, etc., Insurance Co., 80 Pa. S.Ct. 213; Miller. v. Commercial Union Assurance ......
-
Selph v. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. of New York
...... that false warranty of the price paid for a car precluded. recovery. Kiefer v. Girard Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 285. Pa. 589, 132 A. 706; North River Ins. Co. v. Lewis,. 137 ......
-
Commonwealth v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.
...public. The position of defendant is thus summed up by its able counsel, who argued its case at our bar. Originally, before the sale of the 132 A. 706 canal to the Sunbury Railroad Company, the obligation to maintain the bridges rested with the commonwealth. They were not county bridges or ......
- Commonwealth ex rel. James v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co.