Freedman v. Fire Ass'n

Citations

• 168 Pa. 249
• 32 A. 39
• 1895 Pa. LEXIS 784

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Misrepresentation by insured.</p> <p>No recovery can be had upon a policy of fire insurance procured upon the representation that the property insured was owned by and in charge of a successful business man, when in fact the title was in a married woman who exercised no supervision over it.</p> <p>Insurance — Misrepresentations—Waiver.</p> <p>Waiver is essentially a matter of intention, and cannot arise out of acts done in ignorance of material facts, and its proof is inadequate unless it is shown that the insurer knew of the right of forfeiture at the time of doing the act.</p> <p>A stock of merchandise was insured in the name of R. Freedman. The insurance was procured by the representation of the owner’s agent that R. Freedman was a successful business man. It was owned by Rosa Freedman, a married woman, and was in charge of her brother-in-law. The property was destroyed by fire. The third day after the fire plaintiff’s husband and the agent of the insurance company met by appointment, the agent supposing that he was meeting R. Freedman, the insured. Bills were produced to “Mr. R. Freedman” for goods claimed to have been burnt, and after some examination with a view to ascertain the amount of the loss the parties separated. Proofs of loss in which the pronoun “her” appeared were made out and mailed to the company’s office, without anjr request or suggestion from the officers of the company. Subsequently the special agent of the company wrote a letter to plaintiff addressing her as “ madam,” calling her attention to the fact that a certificate of the nearest magistrate had not been attached to the proof of loss. The letter contained a distinct statement that liability was neither admitted nor denied. Held, that the evidence as to a waiver was insufficient, and that the trial judge should have directed a verdict for the defendant.</p>