Burson v. Fire Ass'n

Citations

• 136 Pa. 267
• 20 A. 401
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1028

Syllabus

<p>1. When, after a candid explanation of his title, a person is advised by a representative of an insurance company to insure certain goods, in which he has an interest, in his own name as owner, and acts upon this advice, the company will be estopped from defending on the ground that his interest in the property does not amount to ownership.</p> <p>(a) In arranging with the holder of a fire insurance policy for its renewal, the agent of the insurance company said, “I will make you another policy like the first one, only I will make it so that hereafter, if you wish to continue, we will only give you a receipt, do not have to make a new policy for you: ”</p> <p>2. The assured had aright to suppose that a policy, afterwards delivered to him under this arrangement, was essentially similar to the original policy; and he was not bound by a warranty clause in it, which he did not know of and which had not been in the first policy: Susq. Ins. Co. v. Swank, 102 Pa. 17, distinguished. '</p> <p>8. But a warranty of sole and unconditional ownership is not broken, as to the insurer, by reason of the fact that the assured had made a “lease” of the goods insured, which amounted in law to a conditional sale, reserving title until full payment of the consideration; the insurer has no standing to assert that such transaction is a legal fraud.</p> <p>4. A recovery to the full extent of the policy may be had, in such a case, when the goods insured have been destroyed by fire, although more than half the price to be paid for them under the lease has been received by the assured, as payments to him on account do not transfer the title pro tanto, and he must account for the goods to the conditional vendee.</p> <p>5. An assignment of error to the admission of testimony, which does not give the offer made, nor the substance of the testimony admitted under it, and does not show any exception sealed, although it quotes the objections made to the admission of the testimony, is not according