161 Pa. 279 | Pa. | 1894
Opinion by
The policy in suit was by its terms void, if without the consent of the insurer indorsed thereon, there was when it was issued, or at any time during its continuance, other insurance upon all or any portion of the property covered by it. It is conceded that the plaintiff was the exclusive owner of this property, and that at the time of the fire and for seventeen months previous thereto there was other insurance in his name on a part of it. Prima facie therefore a case of double insurance was presented, and to the extent of it, at least, the policy issued by the defendant company was void. The “ other insurance ” was obtained from the London Assurance Corporation six months after this policy was issued, and soon after the fire an itemized statement and appraisement of the loss upon the property included in it was furnished to the corporation, with the assistance of its agents who had been duly notified of the loss. Four months after the fire the plaintiff forwarded to the defendant company his proofs of loss, and declared therein there
The learned judge instructed the jury to the effect that if the plaintiff did not authorize or ratify the additional insurance, and if when he was informed of it he promptly repudi
The majority of the court are not satisfied that the learned judge erred in the'other instructions complained of, and the second, third and fourth specifications are overruled.
Judgment reversed and venire facias de novo awarded.