Agricultural Insurance v. Pittsburgh Refrigeration Corp.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Agricultural Insurance v. Pittsburgh Refrigeration Corp.

191 A. 665, 127 Pa. Super. 27, 1937 Pa. Super. LEXIS 176

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 27, 1937

DocketAppeal, 25

StatusPublished

This text of 191 A. 665 (Agricultural Insurance v. Pittsburgh Refrigeration Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Agricultural Insurance v. Pittsburgh Refrigeration Corp., 191 A. 665, 127 Pa. Super. 27, 1937 Pa. Super. LEXIS 176 (Pa. Ct. App. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

We agree with the learned court below that the provisions of the policy with respect to the premiums to be paid by the insured were too ambiguous, uncertain and indefinite to warrant a directed verdict. The plaintiff has only itself to blame if it fails to make its policy contract so clear and explicit as to make its construction a matter for the court instead of a jury.

Under the circumstances here present it was for the jury, not the court, to say what the meaning of the contract was, and evidence was properly admitted, not to contradict the terms of the policy, but to help the jury to determine what its ambiguous provisions meant —not to set it aside, but to clarify its uncertainty.

The judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam,

We agree with the learned court below that the provisions of the policy with respect to the premiums to be paid by the insured were too ambiguous, uncertain and indefinite to warrant a directed verdict. The plaintiff has only itself to blame if it fails to make its policy contract so clear and explicit as to make its construction a matter for the court instead of a jury.

Under the circumstances here present it was for the jury, not the court, to say what the meaning of the contract was, and evidence was properly admitted, not to contradict the terms of the policy, but to help the jury to determine what its ambiguous provisions meant —not to set it aside, but to clarify its uncertainty.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A. 665, 127 Pa. Super. 27, 1937 Pa. Super. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/agricultural-insurance-v-pittsburgh-refrigeration-corp-pasuperct-1937.