Peters v. Delaware Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
IN this case, a verdict had been found for the plaintiff , 1 subject to the opinion of the Court on the point reserved; whether there was a double insurance.
Read the full summary
IN this case, a verdict had been found for the plaintiff , 1 subject to the opinion of the Court on the point reserved; whether there was a double insurance. The action was brought on a policy of insurance, underwritten by the defendants, on goods to the amount of 10,000 dollars,laden on board “ any good Swedish vessel, whereof is master for this present voyage, Isaac Prince, or whoever else shall go for master in the said vessel, or by whatever other names the said vessel or the master thereof shall be named or called, at and from St. Bartholomews to Philadelphia.” The policy bore date the…
1Opinion of the Court
Tilghman C. J.
The plaintiff’s counsel have endeavoured, by connecting'the order for insurance with the policy," to shew, that the risk run by the two companies was different, and, consequently, there was not what is deemed in law a double insurance. They say, that' no recovery can be had against The United'States Company, in the first place, because the order for insurance referred to a vessel of which Prince was to be master, and in which there was no alteration by the subsequent memorandum. ' But in this I think they are wrong, because the policy extends to any Swedish vessel, whoever might…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Columbian Insurance v. LynchNew York Supreme Court · 1814
3Cited by4 opinions
- Stacey v. Franklin Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1841
- American Insurance v. GriswoldCourt for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors · 1835
- Reliance Insurance v. Allstate Indemnity Co.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1981
- Perkins v. New England Marine InsuranceMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1815