Gould v. Dwelling-House Ins.

Citations

• 134 Pa. 570
• 19 A. 793
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 748

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. When, in an action upon a policy of insurance, objection is made to the admission of the proofs of loss, upon the ground that they were not furnished within the stipulated time, it is more regular to hear testimony as to an alleged waiver of the stipulation, before admitting them in evidence ; but, if testimony sufficient to carry that question to the jury be afterwards given, their admission without first requiring the waiver to be proved will not be error.</p> <p>2. If the insured, in good faith and within the stipulated time, does what he plainly intends as a compliance with the requirements of his policy respecting proofs of loss, good faith requires that the insurer shall promptly notify him of ‘any objections thereto, so as to give him the opportunity to obviate them; and mere-silence may so mislead him t'o I his disadvantage, as of itself to be sufficient evidence of waiver by es-I toppel.†</p> <p>3. If, however, without valid reason, the insured fail to comply with such requirements at all or within the stipulated time, mere silence, or investigation, or even negotiation by the insurer, will not waive a liability which, under the terms of the policy, is discharged by such failure; and nothing will do that, short of an express agreement, or a change of position by the insured to his disadvantage reasonably induced by the insurer’s acts.</p> <p>4. Whether a strict limitation as to time will preclude the subsequent correction of defects in proofs duly furnished, not decided; nevertheless. the fact that when the proofs were received there remained but three days of the period specified in the policy, which might not prove sufficient to enable the insured to obviate the defects, will not'relieve the insurance company from the obligation, by prompt notice, to give him the opportunity.</p> <p>5. The settled rule that offers of compromise are not admissible as evidence of the plaintiff’s claim, is not transgressed by receiving proof of