Curry v. Sun Fire Office
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 36, July T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Feb. T., 1888, No. 95, on verdict for plaintiff, Robert Curry. Assumpsit on policy of fire insurance.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 36, July T., 1892, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Crawford Co., Feb. T., 1888, No. 95, on verdict for plaintiff, Robert Curry. Assumpsit on policy of fire insurance. The policy contained a provision that it should become void in the event of any false representation by the insured of the condition, situation, or occupancy of the premises, or any omission to make known any fact material to the risk or of any overvaluation or misrepresentation whatsoever, either in a written instrument or otherwise. At the trial, it appeared that the company made no demand for a written…
1Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam,
The policy sued on in this case was not founded upon a written application. What transpired when the insurance was applied for and what representations, if any, were made to obtain it, could only be determined from the testimony. This was somewhat conflicting. Its credibility and value were for the jury. They have found that the defendant’s agent was not imposed upon, and that no false representations were made to him.
The assignments of error, from the fourth to the ninth inclusive, relate to the failure of the plaintiff to communicate to the company or its agent at the time the…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Lenox v. Greenwich InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1895
- Guida v. Underwriters at Lloyd'sDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1983
- Ayres v. American Mutual InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1963