Fritz v. Lebanon Mut. Ins.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 5, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., Jan. T., 1892, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff, Wm. Pl. Fritz. Assumpsit on policy of fire insurance. At the trial, before Waddell, P. J., defendant claimed that no proof of loss had been furnished within fifteen days after the fire, as required by the policy.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 5, Jan. T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Chester Co., Jan. T., 1892, No. 12, on verdict for plaintiff, Wm. Pl. Fritz. Assumpsit on policy of fire insurance. At the trial, before Waddell, P. J., defendant claimed that no proof of loss had been furnished within fifteen days after the fire, as required by the policy. Plaintiff, however, offered evidence which tended to show that plaintiff, immediately after the fire, gave notice of the loss to A. T. Cross, the agent of defendant, who directed Shattuck, an adjuster of all the companies which Cross represented, to adjust…
1Opinion of the Court
Pee Cueiam,
The first four specifications of error are not assigned according to our rules.
The remaining specifications all bear upon the question, whether there was a waiver by the company of the provision in its policy which required proofs of loss to be furnished within fifteen days after the notice of loss. This was the pivotal point in the case. Without going into the details of the evidence, we think there was sufficient upon this point to go to the jury, and that it was properly submitted.
Judgment affirmed.
2Cited by3 opinions
- Acklin v. McCalmont Oil Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1902
- Earley v. Mutual Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1897
- Dennis v. Citizens InsuranceSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1897