Doud v. Citizens' Ins.

Citations

• 141 Pa. 47
• 21 A. 505
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 1038

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>(a) A building, described as “occupied by tenants,” was insured by a policy containing the following stipulations: “This policy will not cover unoccupied buildings, unless insured as such, and if the premises insured shall be vacated without the consent of the company indorsed hereon,.....the policy shall cease and determine.”</p> <p>(b) The building was destroyod by five after removal of the tenant therefrom. There was testimony tending to prove that the tenant did not finish moving out until two days before the fire, and that some of her goods remained until the fire; that the owner took possession Wednesday, the day before the fire, was in the house all that day, and had some furniture then in it.</p> <p>(c) The owner offered to prove that having learned, when she came to the house on Wednesday, of the removal of her tenant, she returned that evening to her home seven miles distant, and was engaged all of Thursday in preparing to move into the house on Friday morning, but was prevented from so moving by the fire, and that she had placed a man in charge of the house on Wednesday, to remain until Friday :</p> <p>L. The offer should have been received; upon the facts as shown and offered to be shown there was no breach of the condition in the policy prohibiting the vacation of the premises: Franklin Ins. Co. v. Kepler, 95 Pa. 492; Lebanon Ins. Co. v. Leathers, 20 W. N. 107; Ins. Co. of N. A. v. Ilannum, 1 Mona. 369. McClure v. Insurance Co., 90 Pa. 277, distinguished.</p> <p>2. The unavoidable absence of the insured from the building, for a temporary purpose, was not a vacation, within the meaning of the policy. Some cessation of occupancy is necessarily incident to a change of tenants; and a reasonable time must be allowed to make such a change, without imposing on the assured the penalty of an intended or a permitted vacation of the premises.</p>