Wanner v. Manufacturers & Merchants Mutual Fire Insurance

Citations

• 245 Pa. 80
• 91 A. 498
• 1914 Pa. LEXIS 835

Syllabus

<p>Trials — Charge to jury — Mis-recital of evidence — Duty of counsel.</p> <p>1. Where in an action of assumpsit on a joint policy of fire insurance, the trial judge in his charge to the jury mistakenly attributes certain testimony to the plaintiff, when in fact the testimony referred to was that of plaintiff’s agent, but counsel for defendant do not call the attention of the trial judge to the error before the jury retires, they can not take advantage thereof, on appeal.</p> <p>Insurance — Fire insurance — Loss—Settlement — Agreement to settle promptly — Breach — Insurance policies — Construction — Charge to fury — Harmless error — Hvidence.</p> <p>2. Where in an action of assumpsit on a joint policy of fire insurance it appeared that plaintiff’s agent, and the adjuster for the insurance companies, inspected the insured buildings which had been damaged by fire, and that a settlement was agreed to, on condition that the money should be paid promptly, but that the companies defaulted in their agreement and neglected to settle for the loss in accordance therewith, the plaintiff was released from the agreement, and could claim the full amount of her loss.</p> <p>'3. Where the policy described the insured building as “occupied as a merchant tailor and steam sanitary cleaning establishment,” but permitted the keeping of ten gallons of gasoline on the premises for sale, storage or use, evidence showing that gasoline was used in connection with steam for cleaning, and that “in steam cleaning no gasoline is necessary,” did not support defendants’ contention that the building was used for “dry” cleaning, nor for “steam cleaning,” particularly where the witness called to sustain this contention said that “possibly all steam cleaning establishments use gasoline,” and the court made no error in charging the jury that “there is no testimony here showing that this building was used for a different purpose than that named in the policy.”</p> <p>4. In such case, it was not reversi