Mills v. Pennsylvania Mutual Live Stock Insurance

Citations

• 57 Pa. Super. 483
• 1914 Pa. Super. LEXIS 223

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Live stock insurance — Contract—Payment of premiums— Waiver — Proofs of loss — Conflicting evidence as to health — Case for jury.</p> <p>1. Where an owner of a horse is permitted, without payment of premium, to retain a policy of insurance on the horse, conditionally on his keeping the animal, and three months afterwards pays the premium to the company, and the company retains the same for two months, and then offers to return it after the death of the horse, the contract of insurance will be deemed to have become effective on the day that the company accepted the premium.</p> <p>2. Where in an action on a policy of insurance on a horse the evidence is conflicting as to the condition and health df the horse on the day that the insurance became effective, the case is for the jury. In such a case the court cannot say as a matter of law that a mere cough from which the animal suffered was a condition of sickness within the. meaning of the health clause in the policy.</p> <p>3. Where the owner of a horse immediately after its death notifies by telephone an insurance company of the death of the horse which the company had insured, and the company at once sends its surgeon to make a post-mortem, and thereafter within sixty days notifies the insured that the policy will not be paid, the company cannot subsequently defend an action on the policy, because of the failure of the insured to give written notice of death or proof of loss within sixty days as specified in the policy.</p>