Post v. American Central Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Post v. American Central Insurance, 51 Pa. Super. 352 (1912)
1912 Pa. Super. LEXIS 226
Head, Henderson, Orlady, Rice

Post v. American Central Insurance

Opinion of the Court

Opinion bt

Head, J.,

In refusing the defendant’s motion for judgment non obstante veredicto and directing judgment to be entered on the verdict, the learned judge of the common pleas filed an elaborate and convincing opinion. In it he reviews separately and fully each one of the legal points *364advanced by the appellant as ground for a reversal of the judgment.

After an examination of the entire record and due consideration of the arguments of counsel, we are all of opinion the case was properly tried and the judgment should not be disturbed. To undertake to here set forth the reasons that lead us to this conclusion would be to do again what has been done by the learned trial judge. We therefore adopt his opinion. The assignments of error are overruled.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name
Post v. American Central Insurance Company
Cited By
5 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
Insurance — Fire insurance — Appraisers—Failure to select umpire. 1. Where a policy of fire insurance provides that each party may select an appraiser, and if the appraisers fail to agree they shall submit their difference to an umpire, and after a fire and the appointment of appraisers in good faith, the appraisers are unable to agree upon an umpire, the insured may maintain an action at law on the policy notwithstanding the arbitration clause. Insurance — Fire insurance — Election to take articles at appraised value — Waiver. 2. Where a policy of fire insurance on a stock of goods gives the company either the right to pay a loss in money, or to take the articles at their appraised value, or to replace them, the insured may, in an action on the policy, show that the adjuster of the company had agreed to pay the amount determined by the appraisers and that the appraisers had met, examined the goods, but had failed to agree; and the company cannot allege as a defense that the insured two days after the meeting of the appraisers had taken possession of the goods and began selling them to the public. Insurance — Fire insurance — Forfeiture—False swearing as to value. 3. Where a policy of fire insurance provides that the entire policy shall be void in the case of any fraud or false swearing by the insured touching any matter relating to the insurance, the false swearing which will create a forfeiture must be done willfully and knowingly with a view to defraud the company. The mere fact that the jury found the value of .the goods considerably less than that stated by the insured will not avoid the policy, if there is evidence from which the jury might find, and did find, that the insured had erred in his opinion, without being guilty of any dishonest intention.