Boyle v. Hamburg-Bremen Fire Insurance

Citations

• 169 Pa. 349
• 32 A. 553
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 1101

Syllabus

<p>Construction of fire policy — Proof of loss — Collective items in inventory.</p> <p>Under a clause in a fire policy which requires the insured to make and present, with the proofs of loss, a complete inventory of damaged goods, stating the quantity and cost of each article and the amount claimed thereon, ‘an inventory, otherwise sufficiently specific, is not invalidated by the fact that it contains items of a collective character, such as a “ lot of goods in a show window,” “contents of a small show case,” “lot of shirt bosoms, handkerchiefs, fly netting,” etc.</p> <p>“ This stipulation is not to be construed most strictly against the insured. Its object is to secure a full statement of the loss, he (the plaintiff) claims, so that the company may have notice and necessary opportunity to test its correctness. Substantial performance is enough.” Per Mr. Justice Williams.</p> <p>Construction of policy — Ascertainment of loss — Appraisement.</p> <p>Where one clause in a fire policy provides that in case of loss an estimate shall be made by the insured and the company, and another clause provides that in case they differ the subject is to be referred to appraisers selected as therein provided, the remedies are successive, and neither party can insist upon the second who has not shown himself willing and ready to enter upon the first: Snodgrass v. Gavit, 28 Pa. 211, followed.</p> <p>Hence, where the defendant company, upon receiving plaintiffs’ proofs, without making any effort to come to an agreement with him as to the amount of his loss, gave notice that a difference had arisen, and demanded the appointment of appraisers in the first instance, Held, that the position was unwarranted, and the plaintiffs could at once resort to an action.</p>