Louck v. Orient Insurance

Citations

• 176 Pa. 638
• 35 A. 247
• 1896 Pa. LEXIS 1121

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Terms of policy.</p> <p>A fire insurance company receiving a property owner’s money, and undertaking to indemnify him by a written contract descriptive of the subject against loss by fire, cannot plead ignorance of the palpable condition of that subject where there is no pretense of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment.</p> <p>A policy of fire insurance described the property insured as “ occupied by the assured as a distillery.” It appeared that the distillery had been standing idle for about two and one half years and was not in operation at the date of the policy, or of the fire which destroyed the buildings. The policy contained a condition that the company should not be liable “ if tlie insured has concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance concerning this insurance or the subject thereof,” or where the subject of insurance was a manufacturing establishment “ if it ceased to be operated for more than ten consecutive days.” The assured had an office on tlie premises which he occupied and in which he slept. It was not claimed that the assured represented that the distillery was in operation, or that he concealed from the company the fact that it was not then, and for years had not been in operation. I-Ield, that the forfeiture clause had no application to the facts of this case, and that the court would not wrest language from its ordinary meaning to enforce forfeitures which are odious.</p>