American Insurance v. Insley
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Deo. 16, 17 — Jan. 10, 11. This was an action on a sealed policy of insurance of the defendants, effected by Jacob and Esau Insley, the plaintiffs, in their names, and in the name of every person to whom the property insured may belong, on the brig Isabella, in the sum of $5000. The first count laid the interest in the plaintiffs, and the loss by stranding on a reef through stress of weather.
Read the full summary
In error from the District Court of Philadelphia. Deo. 16, 17 — Jan. 10, 11. This was an action on a sealed policy of insurance of the defendants, effected by Jacob and Esau Insley, the plaintiffs, in their names, and in the name of every person to whom the property insured may belong, on the brig Isabella, in the sum of $5000. The first count laid the interest in the plaintiffs, and the loss by stranding on a reef through stress of weather. The second count laid the interest to the extent of $3000 in Huston and Child, to whom she had been hypothecated by the plaintiffs. The third count laid…
1Opinion of the CourtGibson, C. J.
On the subject of loss remotely oo *229casioned by-negligence, the law of insurance has undoubtedly been altered in England, to bring it to the law on the continent of-Europe, which treats such negligence as barratry. That it is now treated so by the English courts, is proved by the fact, that though the proximate cause be one of the perils insured against, yet if the remote cause be negligence, they require the assured to count for a loss from barratry, and not for a loss from the proximate cause. That Mr. Justice Bailey considered negligence to be barratry, is manifest from his expression in…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Waters v. Merchants' Louisville InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1837
3Cited by8 opinions
- New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad Company v. GrayCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1957
- Bowers Co. v. London Assurance Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1926
- Nome Beach Lighterage & Transportation Co. v. Munich Assur. Co.District Court, N.D. California · 1903
- Standard Marine Ins. Co. v. Nome Beach Lighterage & Transportation Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1904
- Ebensburg Building & Loan Ass'n v. Westchester Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1905
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.