Sharpless Bros. v. Hartford F. Ins.

Citations

• 140 Pa. 437
• 21 A. 451
• 1891 Pa. LEXIS 857

Syllabus

<p>(а) The defendant issued a policy of insurance against fire upon a stock of goods of the assured kept in their store on Jayne street. On July 24, 1889, in consideration of an additional premium, the defendant placed on the policy an indorsement acknowledging notice that the goods were “about being removed” to another building, and stipulating as follows:</p> <p>(б) “ It is understood and agreed that this policy shall cover pro rata in both places during removal, and thereafter in last named location only.” Fart of the goods having been removed, a fire, on November 23, 1889, destroyed goods in the Jayne street store placed there before July 24th, and others placed there after that date; how many of each class, the owners were unable to show:</p> <p>1. The indorsement gave the assured a privilege of removal, of which they did not need to avail themselves unless they chose; if they acted under it, they were not bound to suspend business during the work of removal, but had the right to continue buying and shipping as usual, and the indorsement did not limit the policy to articles in the Jayne street building at its date.</p> <p>2. It may be that it was the duty of the assured, whenever they began to remove, to proceed with reasonable diligence until the work was done; but the reasonable time for completing the removal must bo estimated from the time of beginning, and not from the date at which the indorsement, granting the privilege of removing, was made.</p> <p>3. In this case, there being nothing to show when the removal began, or any delay in its prosecution, the court could not determine as matter of law that the assured had failed to perform their duty, and upon a verdict in their favor in an action on the policy, they were entitled to judgment: Peoples Ass’n v. Smith, 126 Pa. 317, distinguished.</p>