Skip to main content
· 5/4/1914

Central Market Street Co. v. North British & Mercantile Insurance

Citations

  • 245 Pa. 272
  • 91 A. 662
  • 1914 Pa. LEXIS 873

Syllabus

<p>Contracts — Insurance—Fire insurance — Prohibited articles — Extent of premises insured — Breach of condition — Waiver—Estoppel —Directed verdict for plaintiff.</p> <p>1. If a fire insurance policy is susceptible of two interpretations, it must be construed most strongly against the insurer.</p> <p>2. Where at the time of issuing an insurance policy the company knows or ought to know that one of the conditions is inconsistent with the,facts, and the insured has been guilty of no fraud, the company is estopped from setting up the breach of such condition.</p> <p>3. If an insurance company accepts- unearned premiums or assessments with a knowledge of facts avoiding the policy, it ig estopped to assert the avoidance after a loss, has occurred.</p> <p>4. Where a lessee of one floor of a building is insured against loss by fire of its furnishings on that floor, and a clause in the policy provides that the policy shall be void if certain articles are kept “in the above described premises,” the word “premises” means the floor leased by the insured and does not include that part of the building over which it has no authority or control, especially where the policy declares that the extent of the insurance was “to reimburse the assured for the expense of betterments or improvements paid for by the assured,” and the part of the building occupied by the assured was the only improved part of the building.</p> <p>5. In an action on a fire insurance policy covering the furnishings of a moving picture parlor and containing a clause providing that the policy would be void if celluloid films should be “kept, stored or handled in the above described premises,” where the defense was that such films had been stored on the premises, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the plaintiff where, it appeared that the plaintiff was the lessee of the first floor of the building, and had no control over the rest of the building, the basement and second floor of which were used by a

Judges: Elkin, Fell, Mestbezat, Mestrezat, Moschzisker, Potter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.