Skip to main content
· 11/3/1890

Davis Shoe Co. v. Kittanning Ins.

Citations

  • 138 Pa. 73
  • 20 A. 838
  • 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1240

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Upon receiving proofs of a loss, furnished by the assured in an attempt to comply with the requirements of his policy, it is the duty of an insurance company to examine them, and if they be found objectionable, to return them, pointing out the particular defects therein.</p> <p>2. It is not a sufficient compliance with this duty to return the proofs with a letter, quoting that part of the policy which prescribes the form of the proofs and what they shall contain, and stating merely that the proofs in question are not in accordance therewith.</p> <p>3. The fact that an insurance company retained proofs, so furnished, for more than fifty days without objection, and then returned them as insufficient, but without any specific objection, is evidence sufficient to justify a verdict finding waiver of any defects in the proofs supplied.*</p> <p>4. And, in such case, the waiver may be found, it seems, notwithstanding a provision in the policy “ that no action taken, preliminary to an adjustment of a claim, to ascertain the amount and validity of such claim, shall be considered or treated as a waiver of any rights of this company.”</p> <p>5. When a commission for the taking of testimony in another state, and the entry of its issue upon the appearance docket, bear date on different days, it is not error to permit the prothonotary to testify, on the trial of the case, that the date upon the docket is correct and that the commission was misdated by mistake.</p> <p>6. When objections to a deposition taken upon a commission are made first upon the trial of a cause, in disregard of a rule requiring such objections to be taken by exception within a specified time, it is not error to admit a deposition thus taken, although the form of the final interrogatory is not in compliance with Rule 11, § 57, Equity Rules.</p> <p>7. An insurance company has no right to require a public officer to act in the adjustment of its risks. Wherefore, a condition in a fir

Judges: Collum, Geeen, Mitchell, Paxson, Stekrett, Williams

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.