Skip to main content
· 5/14/1900

Moore v. Susquehanna Mutual Fire Insurance

Citations

  • 196 Pa. 30
  • 46 A. 266
  • 1900 Pa. LEXIS 465

Syllabus

<p>Practice — Affidavit of defense — Averments—Inferences.</p> <p>An affidavit of defense should contain a clear, orderly and specific statement of the facts relied on by the defendant to prevent judgment; merely general averments, or those which raise mixed questions of law and fact, are insufficient. Inferences or conclusions of law are for the court, and if it is desired that they should be drawn in favor of the defendant, the court should be put in possession of the facts from which they are to be drawn.</p> <p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Proof of loss — Affidavit of defense.</p> <p>In an action upon a policy of fire insurance, the question whether the proofs of loss furnished were proper and sufficient is for the court, and if the defendant desires to raise any questions as to them in its affidavit of defense, it must state specifically wherein they were defective, or annex copies to the affidavit of defense so that they may be examined by the court.</p> <p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Excessive insurance — By-law—Fraud.</p> <p>A by-law of a fire insurance company in relation to excessive insurance is a regulation of the company for the management of its business, and the mere fact that property was insured for more than two thirds of its value does not affect the validity of the policy, unless the over insurance was procured by means of some wrongful act on the part of the insured.</p> <p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Affidavit of defense — Ownership of property.</p> <p>In an action on a fire policy where it appears that a provision of the contract is that the entire policy should be void “if the interest of the insured be other than unconditional and sole ownership, or the subject of the insurance be a building on ground not owned by the insured in fee simple,” an affidavit of defense is sufficient which avers that at the time the policy issued, the house and barn insured were not unconditionally and solely owned by the insured, and that they were not on the

Judges: Dean, Fell, Gkeen, McCollum, Mesteezat, Mitchell

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.