Stauffer v. Penn Mutual Fire Ins. Assn. of Lancaster Co.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal, No. 131, July T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Oct. T., 1890, No. 71, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on insurance policy. Before Livingston, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court.
Read the full summary
Appeal, No. 131, July T., 1893, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Lancaster Co., Oct. T., 1890, No. 71, on verdict for plaintiff. Assumpsit on insurance policy. Before Livingston, P. J. The facts appear by the opinion of the Supreme Court. The court charged in part as follows: “If you find from the whole evidence (which is somewhat contradictory upon these points) that Mr. Stauffer, the plaintiff, as he swears he did, told Mr. Zortman, a director of the company, defendant, after the policy issued (Manheim), that lie had additional insurance; that Mr. Zortman said it would be all light;…
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion by
Mb. Justice Fell,
The defendant is a mutual insurance company, and the policy upon which this action is founded contained the following provisions applicable to the question involved: 1. The company shall not be liable for loss if there is either prior or subsequent insurance without its written consent. 2. A compliance with the terms of the policy shall not be considered waived unless the waiver is in writing and signed by the president or secretary. 3. The insurance shall cease at the time the property is insured in another company. 4. A member, in order to procure additional…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Mentz v. Lancaster Fire InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1875
- Bard v. Penn Mutual Fire Ins.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1893
- Hook v. Mutual Insurance Co. of Berks Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1894
3Cited by2 opinions
- Hubbs v. Gramm-Burnstein Co.Louisiana Court of Appeal · 1915
- Kehm v. German Mutual Insurance, Court of Common Pleas of Ohio, Hamilton County1901