McGonigle v. Susquehanna Mutual Fire Insurance
McGonigle v. Susquehanna Mutual Fire Insurance
Opinion of the Court
There appears to be no substantial error either in the learned referee’s findings of fact or in his conclusions of law. His very able and exhaustive report is an ample vindication of his rulings. There was therefore no error in overruling the exceptions and directing judgment for plaintiff in accordance with the referee’s findings.
Judgment affirmed.
MCGONIGLE V. AURORA EIRE INSURANCE COMPANY.
Per Curiam, April 29, 1895 :
By writing, signed by counsel for the parties and filed in this case, it was agreed that the decision to be rendered in Patrick McGonigle v. Susquehanna Mut. Fire Insurance Co., No. 455, January term, 1895, shall control and determine the appeal in this case, and be decisive of all questions arising out of the same.
Judgment affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- Patrick McGonigle v. Susquehanna Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Harrisburg, Appellant Patrick McGonigle v. Aurora Fire Insurance Company
- Cited By
- 24 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- Insurance — Fire insurance — Sub-agent Where a duly authorized insurance agent in the due prosecution of the business of his company employs another as a sub-agent to solicit insurance, the acts of the sub-agent have the same effect as if done by the agent himself. Insurance — Proof of loss — Total loss. Where there is a total loss of an insured building, of which the insurance company has been immediately notified, no further technical proof of loss is necessary. Where a total loss has occurred and the secretary of the company, who also acts as general manager and adjuster, goes promptly to the ground, has appraisers appointed according to the terms of the policy, and promises immediate payment on the finding of the appraisers, the company cannot afterwards set up as a defense the failure of the assured to make proof of loss. In such a case a waiver of a condition in the policy against incumbrances may also be inferred.