66 Pa. Super. 575 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1917
Opinion by
The plaintiff’s action was on a policy of insurance. The only question presented, on the appeal arises out of a provision of the policy that the insured shall within 60 days after the fire render a statement to the company as to the time and origin of the fire, etc. It is conceded that proofs of loss were mailed in the City of Hazleton, Pa., on the sixtieth day after the fire and that they arrived in New York, where the defendant has an office, on the same day. No witness was called to show that the proofs were not delivered to the office of the company that day but a registered letter receipt produced in evidence was stamped the following day, the sixty-first day after the fire. The appellant contends that the plaintiff has made default in that he did not actually deliver to the office of the defendant in New York the proofs of loss not later than the sixtieth day. The learned trial judge instructed the jury that the plaintiff had complied with the conditions of the policy in this respect and on a motion non obstante veredicto reaffirmed his former ruling. The precise question does not appear to have been'decided in this State and the authorities in other states to which our attention has been called are not in harmony. It was held in Peabody v. Satterlee, 59 N. E. Rep. 818, N. Y. Court of Appeals, that the depositing of the proofs of loss in the mail on the sixtieth day after the fire occurred can not be held a compliance with the provisions of the policy. An examination of this case shows that three' of the judges dissented from the opinion and that the appellate division held the performance to be sufficient. On the other hand in Mfg. & M. Ins. Co. v. Zeitinger, 48 N. E. Rep. 179, Supreme Court of Illinois in which the proofs were mailed on the fifty-ninth day but not received by the company until the sixty-first day the court held that the mailing of proofs of loss before the expiration of the sixty days was a substantial compliance with the requirements of the policy. The same question arose in Caldwell v. Dwelling H. Ins.
The judgment is affirmed.
Kephart, Trexler and Williams, JJ., dissent.