Case ID: pa_203/html/0150-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bowman v. Mutual Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
    
      Insurance — Fire insurance — Additional insurance — Waiver—Question for jury.
    
    In an action upon a fire policy, where the insurance company defends on the ground that it had not been notified of additional insurance on the premises insured, the case is for the jury where the testimony of the plaintiff, although contradicted, was in effect that at a time when his policy was in possession of the company, he told the secretary of the company of his additional insurance, to which reply was made, “All right,” and that subsequently, and until the fire, assessments were made on the policy.
    Argued Feb. 3, 1902.
    Appeal, No. 322, Jan. T., 1901, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Montgomery Co., June T., 1900, No. 164, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Jonas Bowman v. Mutual Fire Insurance Company of Montgomery County.
    Before McCollum, C. J., Dean, Fell, Bbown and Mestbezat, JJ.
    Affirmed.
    Assumpsit on a policy of fire insurance. Before Weand, J.
    At tbe trial the company defended on the ground that the plaintiff had not notified the company of additional insurance on the premises insured, as he was required to do under the by-laws. Plaintiff testified that at a time when his policy was in possession of the secretary, at the company’s office, he told the secretary of his additional insurance, to which reply was made, “All right,” and that subsequently, and itntil the fire, assessments were made on the policy. The company offered testimony tending to contradict the plaintiff’s allegation. The court refused binding instructions for defendant.
    Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $6,140.40. Defendant appealed.
    
      Error assigned was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.
    
      Louis M. Childs, for appellant.
    
      N. H. Larzelere, with him George W. Zimmerman, for appellee.
    May 19, 1902:
   Per Curiam,

The proof of notice of additional insurance was sufficient to go to the jury, and the question whether there was a waiver was properly submitted.

The judgment is affirmed.