Hess v. Hartford Fire Insurance

Citations

• 38 Pa. Super. 158
• 1909 Pa. Super. LEXIS 105

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Proofs of loss — Waiver—Pleading.</p> <p>1. Where by the terms of a fire insurance policy the insurance company has the right, not only to have the formal proofs of loss, or statement therein called for, but also the right to demand the production or examination of all books of accounts, bills, invoices and other vouchers, such rights are separate and distinct and are not inconsistent with, nor repugnant to, each other. It cannot therefore be said that a mere naked insistence on the one can be regarded as, in any sense, a waiver of the other; but if the company exercises the one right in such a manner as to reasonably induce the assured to believe that it would not insist upon the other, it ought not to complain if the assured acts upon the belief and on that account fails to follow strictly the line and letter of the policy. And this should be none the less true where both rights exist for one common object, viz.: the ascertainment of the facts showing a liability on the part of the company, and the cash value of the property destroyed.</p> <p>2. Where a stock of goods is destroyed by fire and the bills, vouchers and receipts of the owner are also destroyed, if the insurance adjusters, meeting to adjust the loss, invite the assured to their conference, secure from him all of the information to be found in his bank book and stock books which were not burned, and then being unable to agree with him as to amount, require him to procure duplicate bills of all stock purchased by him during a considerable period of time, and then adjourn to meet when such duplicates shall have been secured to complete the adjustment, a finding by the jury that the insurance company has waived the filing of formal proofs of loss will not be disturbed. ‘</p> <p>3. In an action upon a policy of fire insurance it is not necessary that the plaintiff in order to plead a valid and subsisting contract of insurance should aver in his statement that the defendant ha