Perry v. Southern Surety Co.

Citations

• 78 Pa. Super. 222
• 1922 Pa. Super. LEXIS 89

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Theft — Evidence — Sufficiency — Interpretation of policy.</p> <p>Iu an. action, upon a policy of insurance against loss by burglary, larceny or theft, to recover for the loss of a valuable ring, evidence to show the circumstances connected with the disappearance of the ring, which excluded any other theory than that it had been taken by theft, is sufficient to sustain a finding by the court, before whom the case was tried without a jury, in favor of the plaintiff.</p> <p>An insurance policy will not be so interpreted as to render it frivolous and ineffective.</p> <p>Words and phrases — ‘‘Conclusive evidence.”</p> <p>The phrase “conclusive evidence” is frequently used inaccurately to define evidence which, if believed, though not conclusive, satisfies the mind to a moral certainty. When used in a policy of insurance against loss by theft, it will not be construed as requiring the production of such evidence as could only be supplied by one who actually saw the theft committed.</p>