Springfield Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Brown

• Decision Date: 07 October 1889
• Docket Number: 350
• Citation: 128 Pa. 392,18 A. 396
• Parties: SPRINGFIELD F. & M. INS. CO. v. C. H. BROWN
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

18 A. 396

128 Pa. 392

SPRINGFIELD F. & M. INS. CO. v. C. H. BROWN

No. 350

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 7, 1889

Argued May 1, 1889

ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CRAWFORD COUNTY.

No. 350 January Term 1889, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 49 May Term 1887, C.P.

On March 14, 1887, C. H. Brown brought debt against the Springfield Fire and Marine Insurance Company, on a policy of fire insurance for $1,000 issued to him by the defendant company. Issue.

At the trial on January 24, 1889, the case presented was as follows to wit:

On June 11, 1886, the plaintiff procured from the defendant a policy of fire insurance for $1,000 on his stock of merchandise which policy contained the following clause:

"In case of loss, the assured shall give immediate notice thereof, and shall render to the company a particular account of said loss, under oath, stating the time, origin and circumstances of the fire; the occupancy of the building insured or containing the property insured; other insurance if any, and copies of all policies; the whole value and ownership of the property, and the amount of loss or damage and shall produce the certificate, under seal of a magistrate, notary public or commissioner of deeds, nearest the place of the fire, and not concerned in the loss or related to the assured, stating that he has examined the circumstances attending the loss, knows the character and circumstances of the assured, and verily believes that assured has without fraud, sustained loss on the property insured to the amount claimed by the said assured. . . . If required, the assured shall produce books of account and other proper vouchers, original or duplicate invoices of all property hereby insured, whether damaged or not damaged, and be examined under oath by any person appointed by the company, touching all questions by him deemed pertinent to the loss, and subscribe such examination when reduced to writing; and a refusal to answer such questions and subscribe such examination, when reduced to writing, shall cause a forfeiture of all claims under this policy."

The plaintiff testified that the fire by which the insured property was destroyed occurred on September 11, 1886; that immediate notice of the loss was given, but formal proofs were not then furnished; that after the notice, Mr. Adams, the company's adjuster, came upon the ground and instructed the plaintiff how to proceed; that as his bills of goods purchased had all been burned, he was directed by Adams to procure duplicate bills; that a number of duplicate bills were procured by him within a month after the fire and Adams was notified thereof; that on October 4, 1886, Adams and himself agreed to refer certain matters in dispute to one Spear, a former clerk in plaintiff's store; that plaintiff procured Spear's affidavit as to the matters and submitted it to Adams, who refused to adjust plaintiff's damages, and in November, 1886, gave to plaintiff a written notice to prepare his proofs of loss, promising to send him blanks therefor; that he waited some time for the blanks which failed to come, when he made out his proofs as well as he could, and on December 15, 1886, submitted them to the company.

The defendant submitted testimony to meet that adduced by the plaintiff, and at the close of the case presented, inter alia, the following points:

5. The act of assembly of June 27, 1883, P.L. 165, has fixed the limit of time as ten days from the date of the fire within which the insured may give notice of loss, and twenty days from said date within which the insured shall furnish preliminary proofs of his loss; and therefore, any furnishing of preliminary proofs after twenty days from the date of the fire is unreasonable, and the plaintiff, under the evidence in this case, cannot recover in this suit, unless such furnishing of proofs has been expressly or impliedly waived by the defendant in a lawful manner, of which there is no evidence in this case.

Answer: This point is refused.

10. Under the law and the evidence in this case the plaintiff is not entitled to recover, and the verdict must be for the defendant.

Answer: This point is refused.

The court, WICKHAM, P.J. 36th district, presiding,...