Everett v. London etc. Ins.

Citations

• 142 Pa. 332
• 28 W.N.C. 203
• 21 A. 819
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 740

Syllabus

<p>(a) In assumpsit upon a policy of fire insurance, the defence was the violation of three separate conditions of the policy: (1) Over-insurance, beyond the amount consented to by the defendant; (2) failure to ascertain the amount of loss by arbitration before suit; and (3), failure to bring suit within the time limited:</p> <p>1. Statements in the form of proofs of loss, showing also the shares proposed to be paid proportionally by the several companies interested, made out by adjusters whose authority to act for the defendant therein was not shown, were not sufficient evidence to establish a waiver by the defendant of the condition against over-insurance.</p> <p>2. To constitute a waiver by implication of a condition requiring a suit upon a policy to be brought within a certain time, there must be some act-or declaration by the company dispensing with it, done or made during the running of the period of limitation, not after it has expired and the rights of the parties are fixed.</p> <p>3. Letters written by the company to its agents, but their contents, informing the latter that to avoid litigation the company would settle under certain conditions, not made known to the plaintiff and the conditions performed, are not evidence of a waiver by the company of the time limit within which suit must be brought.</p> <p>4. Where the receipt and retention of proofs of loss are relied upon as an acquiescence and agreement as to the amount thereof, or, if not relied upon, where the policy provides a specific method of ascertaining the amount of the loss, the admission of parol testimony as to the quality and value of the goods destroyed is error.</p>