Humphreys v. Nat'l Benefit Ass'n

Citations

• 139 Pa. 264
• 20 A. 1047
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 986

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. A contract of insurance must have a reasonable interpretation, such as was probably in the contemplation of the parties when it was made; and when the words of a policy are, without violence, susceptible of two interpretations, that which will sustain a claim to the indemnify it was the object of the assured to obtain, should be preferred.</p> <p>(á) An accident insurance company issued a policy to one who was known to the company’s general agent to have but one eye, providing, inter alia, for the payment of $1,000 to the assured, in case of his permanent disability by “the total and permanent loss of the sight of both eyes,” from accidental bodily injuries received while the contract should be in force:</p> <p>2. The knowledge of the general agent being the knowledge of the company itself, which therefore must be assumed to have known that it was insuring a man with one eye, the policy must be construed as insuring against the loss of eyesight by the destruction of that eye; notwithstanding the risk of the contract to the insurer was greater than if the assured had had two eyes.</p>