Corbin v. Millers Mutual Fire Insurance

Citations

• 259 Pa. 106
• 102 A. 425
• 1917 Pa. LEXIS 525

Syllabus

<p>Fire insurance — Application—Answers to questions — Misrepresentations — Flour mill — Character of poiver used — Inspection — Breach of warranty — Estoppel—Judgment for defendant n. o. v,</p> <p>1. In an action on a lire insurance policy covering a flour mill operated by water power with a gasoline engine as auxiliary power, a verdict should have been directed for the defendant where it appeared that to specific questions in the application plaintiff answered that only water power was used; that while defendant’s secretary actually inspected the premises and saw the gasoline engine the application was not received by him until several months thereafter, and that before the policy was issued he communicated with the plaintiff stating that an additional rate was chargeable if gasoline power was also employed, and that with full knowledge of the difference in the rates plaintiff remitted the premium chargeable if water power only was used.</p> <p>2. In such case the company was justified in inferring from applicant’s written declaration and from the payment of the lower premium that only water power was used, that plaintiff intended to represent that the use of the gasoline engine in operation at the time of the inspection by defendant’s secretary had been abancloned, and defendant was not estopped by reason of such inspection from setting up the breach of warranty of the truth of plaintiff’s answers to the questions in the application.</p>