Walker v. Lion Fire Insurance
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 393, Jan. T., 1896, by plaintiffs, from judgment of C. P. Lycoming Co., March T., 1894, No. 347, refusing to take off nonsuit. Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before Metzger, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. Error assigned was refusal to take off nonsuit.
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mr. Justice Fell,
A nonsuit was entered in this case for the reason that it ■appeared from the testimony that a material change in the conditions affecting the risk had occurred between the time when the application for insurance was made and the time when it was accepted, and.upon the ground that the contract was not completed until after the property insured was on fire. The insurance was effected through the agency of G. T. Burd, who was the secretary of the Union Insurance Company. In determining the time at which the insurance went into effect it was important that the relation…
2Cited by6 opinions
- Essington Enamel Co. v. Granite State Fire InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1911
- Simpson v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United StatesSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1937
- Barry v. Aetna Insurance Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1951
- Nicholas Burke Co. v. Miss. Valley Realty Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1917
- Simon Hendler & Son v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County1926
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.