Rosenberg v. Firemans Fund Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 48, Jan. T., 1904, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Northampton Co., June T., 1902, No. 14, .on verdict for plaintiff in case of Max Rosenberg and Max Senderowitz, trading as Rosenberg & Senderowitz, v. Firemans Fund Insurance Company. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. The opinion of the Supreme Court states the case. Errors assigned were (1-5) refusal of points; (6) refusal to permit proofs of loss to go out with the jury.
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
This action was on a policy of fire insurance, and three grounds of defense were presented. The first was that the goods burned were not of the value claimed; the second, that the plaintiffs had feloniously caused the fire; and the third that after the fire the plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms *337of the policy, which required them to permit an examination of the property that remained, to produce their books and vouchers, and to submit to an examination under oath. The first two grounds raised questions for the jury only, and under the conflicting testimony as to what…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Cummins v. German American InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1899
- Cole v. Manchester Fire Assurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1898
3Cited by8 opinions
- Gratz v. Insurance Co. of North AmericaSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1924
- Bobereski, Adm. v. Ins. Co. of Pa.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1932
- Butler Candy Co. v. Springfield Fire & Marine Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1929
- Baldi v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1906
- Fishel v. Yorktowne Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.