Schroedel v. Humboldt Fire Ins.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania November 13, 1893

Schroedel v. Humboldt Fire Ins., 158 Pa. 459 (Pa. 1893)

27 A. 1077; 1893 Pa. LEXIS 1614

Dean, Green, Mitchell, Sterrett, Thompson, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

One of the stipulations contained in the contract sued on is : “ The entire policy shall be void .... if the interest of the insured be not truly stated therein ; .... or if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership.” The uncontradicted evidence was that the title to the property was in the plaintiff and his wife jointly. This, in the absence of any proof of fraud or mistake, as to the insertion of the stipulation above quoted, was a flat bar to plaintiff’s recovery. There was therefore no error in directing a verdict for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Schroedel v. Humboldt Fire Ins. Co.
Cited By: 22 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Fire insurance — Policy— Title — Mistake. A policy of fire insurance provided that “ the entire policy shall be void if the interest of the insured be not truly stated therein ; or if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership.” The uncontradicted evidence was that the title to the property was in the plaintiff and his wife jointly. There was no evidence to corroborate the testimony of the wife that the stipulation in the policy had been inserted by fraud, accident or mistake, and it was denied by the agent of the company. Held, that it was proper to direct a verdict for the insurance company.