Haws v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins.

Citations

• 130 Pa. 113
• 15 A. 915
• 1888 Pa. LEXIS 708

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Where 'written and printed portions of a contract are repugnant to each other, the printed form must yield to the written clauses of the instrument, as the latter are presumed to be the deliberate expression of the real intent of the parties.</p> <p>(a) A policy of insurance upon a barn, and also upon hay, etc., buggies, etc., and horses, all contained in said barn, was written upon an ordinary fire blank. The printed part contained a provision that it should not cover a loss solely by lightning, but by the written part such loss was included in the risk.</p> <p>(5) There was contained a printed clause to the effect that the policy did not insure personal property while removed from the particular building mentioned, or kept or used in any other place or location, unless otherwise specified in the policy. One of the horses insured was killed by lightning in a pasture field.</p> <p>2. The printed clause as to removal from the barn was not repugnant to the genera] purpose of the parties as manifested in the written part of the policy, and on such a policy the insurance company is not liable for the value of a horse killed by lightning elsewhere than in the barn: Haws v. Tire Association, 114 Pa. 431, and American etc. Ins. Co. v. Haws, 20 W. N. 370, distinguished.</p>