Hebb v. Kittanning Ins.

Citations

• 138 Pa. 174
• 20 A. 837
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 1255

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. In an action upon a policy of fire insurance, when the plaintiff’s statement of claim is accompanied by a copy of the policy sued on, judgment may be taken, under § 5 of the procedure act of May 25, 1887, P. L. 271, for want of an aflidavit of defence, or of a sufficient affidavit of de-fence.</p> <p>2. It was not intended to rule, in Erie City v. Butler, 120 Pa. 374, that an incidental reference to a paper, in an affidavit of defence, renders it necessary to attach a copy thereof; but, when the paper is an important factor, and the defendant attempts to set up his interpretation thereof or inferences from it, as a defence, a copy must be attached.</p> <p>3. The act of May 11, 1881, P. L. 20, providing that an application for insurance shall not be received in evidence or considered a part of the contract between the parties, unless a copy is attached to the policy, applies in cases of policies issued by companies incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania upon property situated in another state.</p> <p>4. To hold otherwise would be to give the act too narrow a construction: the act was intended to provide a uniform rule of procedure, and to apply to all insurance companies incorporated in this state, and to all other corporations insuring lives or property within the state: Per Mr. Chief Justice Paxson.</p> <p>5. A copy of the policy attached to plaintiff’s statement of claim showing no copy of the application attached, an affidavit of defence setting up misrepresentations contained in the application, but not averring compliance by the company with the provisions of the act of May 11, 1881, was insufficient to prevent summary judgment.</p>