Axe v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.

Citations

• 239 Pa. 569
• 86 A. 1095
• 1913 Pa. LEXIS 609

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Burglary insurance — Covenants of policy — Premises —Watchman.</p> <p>1. A policy of burglary insurance indemnified the insured for loss by burglary “from the store or rooms actually occupied by the assured and described in the said schedule (hereinafter called the premises).” In the schedule were the following statements: “The premises occupied by the assured are as follows: Fourth floor.” “Location of building: 1023-25-27 Race street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.” “No other business than that of the assured is carried on within the premises, except as follows: No exceptions.” Held, that the word “premises” meant the store or rooms actually occupied by the assured, which was the fourth floor of the building, and not the entire building.</p> <p>2. Where such a .policy stipulates that a private watchman “is employed within the premises when not open for the transaction of business,” and that such service should “be Continued during the currency of this policy,” the insured is not entitled to recover if it appears that he did not employ a watchman as agreed. The fact that the owner of the building employed a watchman for the building is immaterial, especially where it appears that such watchman did not have the keys to the doors entering the fourth floor, and was not on duty at the time the burglary took place.</p>