Boatman's Fire & Marine Insurance v. Hocking

Citations

• 5 Sadler 180
• 8 A. 417
• 1887 Pa. LEXIS 572

Syllabus

<p>The mere commingling of personal property covered by separate policies of fire insurance, one policy being in the name of the plaintiff and the other in the name of a firm of which plaintiff is a member, is not a breach of the conditions against prior insurance without disclosure, or subsequent insurance without notice.</p> <p>Note. — Compliance with provisions of a policy requiring notice of loss forthwith, or immediately, is sufficient where given in a reasonable time. West Branch Ins. Co. v. Helfenstein, 40 Pa. 289, 80 Am. Dec. 573; People’s Mut. Acei. Asso. v. Smith, 126 Pa. 317, 12 Am. St. Rep. 870, 17 Atl. 605. This is ti-ue notwithstanding the act of June 27, 1883 (P. L. 165), which gave to the insured ten days to give notice of loss, and twenty days to present preliminary proofs, since this provision was solely for the benefit of the assured. Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Brown, 128 Pa. 392, 18 Atl. 39G. A failure to give notice within a stipulated time does not prevent a recovery, unless such failure is made a cause of forfeiture by the policy. Coventry Mut. Live Stock Ins. Asso. v. Evans, 102 Pa. 281.</p> <p>Proof of loss, in this case, held to be within a reasonable time.</p>