McFarland v. Kittanning Ins.

Citations

• 134 Pa. 590
• 26 W.N.C. 174
• 19 A. 796
• 1890 Pa. LEXIS 749

Syllabus

<p>[To be reported.]</p> <p>1. Notwithstanding a stipulation in a policy of insurance that nothing less than an express agreement, indorsed thereon, shall be construed as a waiver of any of its conditions, parol testimony is admissible to show a waiver by acts in pais of the insurance company: Gould v. Insurance Co., ante, 570, followed; Universal F. Ins. Co. v. Weiss, 106 Pa. 20, distinguished.</p> <p>2. When, however, the policy contains a condition of such substantial effect that the policy shall be void if the property insured be encumbered at its date or shall afterwards become so, without notice to the company, it is incumbent on the insured to establish the facts making out the alleged parol waiver thereof by a clear preponderance of evidence.</p> <p>3. That the company, with knowledge of every fact upon which it could avoid the policy, misled and delayed the insured by promising to pay the loss, prevented him from rebuilding by its negotiations, put him to trouble and expense in proving the loss, and procured a mutually binding adjustment of the amount of the loss by appraisers, is sufficient evidence of such waiver.</p>