Corcoran v. Mutual Life Insurance

Citations

• 179 Pa. 132
• 36 A. 203
• 1897 Pa. LEXIS 613

Syllabus

<p>Evidence — Letter—Province of court and jury.</p> <p>Where a letter produced in evidence is plain and direct in its statements, and without ambiguity, its construction is for the court.</p> <p>Insurance — Life insurance — Notice of assignment — Waiver—Letter— Loss of policy — Evidence—Province of court and jury.</p> <p>A life insurance company paid the amount of a policy of insurance on the life of C. to C.’s wife. It was claimed that the policy was lost, and before the policy was paid, C.’s wife was required to give to the company a bond of indemnity. Subsequently suit was brought upon the policy by a person claiming under an assignment from D. to whom C. and wife had assigned the policy. The policy stipulated that the company would take no notice of any assignment until it had been furnished with a duplicate, or a certified copy thereof, delivered to the company at its principal office. The company set up this stipulation as a defense, and the plaintiff replied that the company had waived the stipulation. The plaintiff gave in evidence a letter from the assignee to the secretary of the company, referring to the assignments, and asking whether he should forward the policy, or should send the assignments only. The secretary replied that the company had no record of the transfers, but if furnished with duplicate or certified copies of the assignments, the company would file them as notice of claim, and directed him to communicate with the general agent of the company in Philadelphia, the principal office being in New York. Plaintiff proved that he sent the policy by a messenger to the agent in Philadelphia, and that the messenger in the agent’s absence showed the policy to a clerk, who, after looking at it, returned it without comment. No copies were in fact sent to either the New York or the Philadelphia office, and no note or memorandum of the assignments were found in either office. Held, (1) that the construction of the letter of the secretary, and whether it