223 Pa. Super. 410 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1973
Opinion
Plaintiff had contracted for a one-night (September 28, 1970) closed circuit showing in Pittsburgh of a live New York performance of “Oh, Calcutta”, and had procured from defendant insurance company a policy of insurance against breakdown of the broadcasting equipment or loss of signal. There was an equipment breakdown and as a result the receipts from the sold tickets had to be refunded to the purchasers. Defendant
It is plaintiff’s contention that the inferences and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court were incorrect in that (1) the insurance policy was ambiguous and should not have been interpreted as limiting recovery only as to tickets bearing customers’ signatures and addresses; (2) the insurance policy was a contract of adhesion; and (3) plaintiff was relieved of the duty of securing the customers’ signatures on the tickets because of the “mob and group violence which threatened on this particular occasion.”
We have carefully studied the record and it is our conclusion that the insurance policy was properly determined by the court below not to be a contract of adhesion, the evidence not revealing any great disparity of bargaining power between the parties thereto.
The contract was, therefore, properly interpreted according to its clear and unambiguous meaning with the result that the insured can collect only for those tickets signed by the customers.
Plaintiff seeks to rely on the statement “In the event of a loss, the amount of the claim will be determined solely by the amount of tickets returned for re
The lower court properly held plaintiff was not excused from fulfillment of that requirement by reason of the unruliness of the customers and their refusal to place their names and addresses on the tickets returned for refund. Such conditions were foreseeable and should have been provided for in the policy (Luria Engineering Co. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 206 Pa. Superior Ct. 333 (1965)).
Judgment affirmed.