Case Name: Robert Wagner, Trading as the United States Meat Market, Appellant, v. London Guaranty and Accident Company, Limited
Court: Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1925-12-14
Citations: 86 Pa. Super. 542
Docket Number: Appeal No. 167
Parties: Robert Wagner, Trading as the United States Meat Market, Appellant, v. London Guaranty and Accident Company, Limited.
Judges: Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania Superior Court Reports
Volume: 86
Pages: 542–545

Head Matter:
Robert Wagner, Trading as the United States Meat Market, Appellant, v. London Guaranty and Accident Company, Limited.
Argued October 19, 1925.
Before Porter, Henderson, Trexler, Keller, Linn and Gawthrop, JJ.
Before Gordon, J.
Ulysses S. Koons, for appellant.
— A policy of insurance must be construed liberally in favor of the insured and strictly against the company. The facts are sufficient to warrant a judgment on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff: Clum v. Casualty Co., 281 Pa. 464; Krebs v. Phila. Life Ins. Co., 249 Pa. 330; Central Market St. Co. v. North British &c., Ins. Co., 245 Pa. 272; Francis v. Prudential Insurance Co., 243 Pa. 380; Montgomery v. Southern Mutual Insurance Co., 242 Pa. 86; Reynolds v. Maryland Casualty Co., 30 Pa. Super. Ct. 456; Frick v. United Fireman’s Ins. Co., 218 Pa. 409; Farner v. Massachusetts &c., Assurance Co., 219 Pa. 71; McKeesport &c v. Ben Franklin Insurance Co., 173 Pa. 53.
Wm. W. Smithers, for appellee.
— A policy of insurance covers only such injury as has been provided for, and if limitations on the right of reimbursement are imposed, where loss occurs, compliance with which is necessary before recovery can be had, they are controlling: Weinstein v. Globe Co., 277 Pa. 388; Gorson v. Aetna Co., 283 Pa. 558; Schoenfeld v. Indemnity Co., 76 Sup. Ct. 299; Md. Cas. Co. v. Bank, 107 N. W, Rep. (Neb.) 562; Frankel et al. v. Mass. Bonding & Ins. Co., 177 S. W. (Mo.) 775; Bank v. Cas. Co., 162 Cal. 61.
December 14, 1925:

Opinion:
Per Curiam,
The opinion of Judge Gordon, stating the grounds upon which judgment was entered in favor of the defendant notwithstanding the verdict, fully vindicates the conclusion at which he arrived.
The judgment is affirmed.