The Portland daily press., 1897-06-03
Law Court Decision.
The following rescript has been sent
down from the Law court:
KNOX COUNTY.


Sophronia e. Robinson vs. The Penn
sylvania Fire Insurance Co.
Rescript by Wiswell, jim an action
on tire insurance policy there was evil
dence that the plaintiff did not furnish
proofs of loss within reasonable time as
required by r. S., c. 40, sec. 81, but
claimed that the defendant had waived
the same. There was also evidence tend
ing to prove that the defendant denied it's
liability for the reason that the policy did
not cover the goods which were in a new
building, or carriage house, which the
plaintiff claimed belonged with her dwell
ing house. The plaintiff contended that
such denial was a waiver of the proofs of
loss, and the defendant commended the
contrary.
Upon the question of waiver the presid-
ing justice instructed the jury as follows;
$50, gentlemen, you will determine
whether or not from the beginning, the
defendant has denied it's liability under
this policy because they claim it did not
cover this property; and if it has, then,
gentlemen, they have waived any proof
on the part of the plaintiff; and, as ]
have said to you, she may recover, pro-
vided she satisfies you. that the policy
of it's being in the building that was
mentioned in the policy
Held; That ordinarily, the question as
to whether or not there has been a waiver
is one of fact for the jury. 1t was a
question of fact in this case. There being
no express waiver. it is not only necessary
| for the jury to determine what the facts
are, which are relied on to establish a
waiver, but it is also the peculiar and ap-
propriate province of the jury to deter
mine what differences are properly de-
ducible from such facts.
It was, therefore, for the jury to deter
| mine, from the facts relied on and proved
whether the inference could be properly
drawn, either, that there was an intention
upon the part of the insurer to waive its
rights to have proof of loss furnished by
| the insured; or that the denial of liability,
| for another cause, was of such character
| or made under such circumstances, as to
reasonably induce a belief upon the part
of the insured, that the furnishing proof
of loss would be useless formality, and
that in relying upon the belief thus in
duced, the plaintiff neglected to make
| one.
The carriage house building was erected
| soon after the policy was issued and
distant from the dwelling house nearly
| two hundred feet, but on the same lot
The presiding justice after instructine
| the jury that they would determine
whether or not said building belonged tc
| the house and stable, to be used there
with as carriage house building, OF
whether 1t was a separate place where
business was to be carried on and extra
hazardous articles were to be kept, further
instructed the jury as follows: "It is moi
necessary that it should be building
| where only carriages are kept. 1t might
be used for various purposes. The only
question is, did it belong to them to BIZ
used to some extent as a carriage house
with that stable? If it did, then this
policy covered the property that was in it,
and the plaintiff would be entitled to re.
| cover under the policy. If it did not, then
the plaintiff cannot recover"
Held: That the instructions are correct
and in accordance with the previous de
eision of this court in 81 Maine, $780, The
building, viz: cher frame stable and
carriage house buildings, belonging with
said dwelling and on the same lot" was
within the description in the policy, if it
was in part used by the plaintiff as car
riage house belonging with her dwelling
house and on the same lot, although it
was also used to some extent by persons
other than the plaintiff for other purposes.
Exceptions sustained.