Enyeart v. Farmers Fire Insurance

Citations

• 65 Pa. Super. 425
• 1917 Pa. Super. LEXIS 13

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Vacant premises — Conflict of testimony — Case for jury.</p> <p>In an action on a policy of fire insurance where the defense is that the premises had been vacant at the time of the fire for ten days in violation of the policy, the case is for the jury where the plaintiff testifies that on April 20th, the premises had been vacated by his tenant, that on the evening of that day notice had been given to the company, and that the fire occurred on April 30th, while a witness for the defendant testifies that the premises had been vacated on April 16th.</p> <p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Sole ownership — Equitable ownership — Adverse possession.</p> <p>A defense by a fire insurance contpany in an action on a policy, that the insured was not the sole owner of the premises destroyed, is met by proof that the insured some years before had owned the premises in fee, that being insolvent the property had been sold at sheriff’s sale and bought in by his brothers-in-law, that subsequently the purchasers made a parol agreement to sell their interest to the insured, that the latter remained in possession of the premises from the sheriff’s sale and without a lease for over twenty-five years, made improvements and repairs thereon, paid the taxes, took out insurance in his own name and paid the premiums, paid a part of the purchase-money, rented the premises for a time and collected the rents, without the owners of the legal title ever interfering with his possession or control of the property, or asserting ownership: Prospect Dye Works v. Ins. Co., 33 Pa. Superior Ct. 223, distinguished.</p>