First National Bank v. Newark Fire Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

First National Bank v. Newark Fire Insurance

180 A. 163, 118 Pa. Super. 582, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 101

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedApril 17, 1935

DocketAppeal, 231

StatusPublished

Cited by18 cases

This text of 180 A. 163 (First National Bank v. Newark Fire Insurance) 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

First National Bank v. Newark Fire Insurance, 180 A. 163, 118 Pa. Super. 582, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 101 (Pa. Ct. App. 1935).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The material issues involved in this case are all satisfactorily disposed of in the clear and convincing opinion of President Judge Brownson of the court below. It is not necessary to add to it beyond citing, as additional authority, the cases of Banco Commerciale de Puerto *595 Rico v. Royal Exchange Assurance Corp., 71 Fed. (2d) 933, C. C. A. 1st Circuit, and Overholt v. Reliance Ins. Co., 319 Pa. 340, 179 A. 554; and calling attention to the fact that the standard form of fire insurance policy is prescribed by statute (Act of May 17, 1921, P. L. 682, pp. 732, 733, secs. 522, 523, 40 PS secs. 657, 658) and does not authorize a clause or rider to a policy insuring an owner of property, giving to his judgment creditor an independent contract of insurance unaffected by the fraudulent acts of the insured owner, such as is expressly allowed to a mortgagee or a trustee under a deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage; and no form other than the standard form may be used in this State, (Act of May 17, 1921, supra, see. 524, p. 739), without the previous approval of the Insurance Commissioner (Act of June 23, 1931, P. L. 904, pp. 910, 913); and further that there is no evidence at all in this case which would warrant a finding by a jury that the plaintiff bank ever contemplated obtaining a separate policy insuring its own special interest as a judgment creditor, or changing its security from a judgment to a mortgage, and was dissuaded from taking either of- these steps by the acts or representations of defendant’s agent. Had there been such evidence a different question would be presented.

With this additional comment, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed on Judge Brownson’S opinion.

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

Per Curiam,

The material issues involved in this case are all satisfactorily disposed of in the clear and convincing opinion of President Judge Brownson of the court below. It is not necessary to add to it beyond citing, as additional authority, the cases of Banco Commerciale de Puerto *595 Rico v. Royal Exchange Assurance Corp., 71 Fed. (2d) 933, C. C. A. 1st Circuit, and Overholt v. Reliance Ins. Co., 319 Pa. 340, 179 A. 554; and calling attention to the fact that the standard form of fire insurance policy is prescribed by statute (Act of May 17, 1921, P. L. 682, pp. 732, 733, secs. 522, 523, 40 PS secs. 657, 658) and does not authorize a clause or rider to a policy insuring an owner of property, giving to his judgment creditor an independent contract of insurance unaffected by the fraudulent acts of the insured owner, such as is expressly allowed to a mortgagee or a trustee under a deed of trust in the nature of a mortgage; and no form other than the standard form may be used in this State, (Act of May 17, 1921, supra, see. 524, p. 739), without the previous approval of the Insurance Commissioner (Act of June 23, 1931, P. L. 904, pp. 910, 913); and further that there is no evidence at all in this case which would warrant a finding by a jury that the plaintiff bank ever contemplated obtaining a separate policy insuring its own special interest as a judgment creditor, or changing its security from a judgment to a mortgage, and was dissuaded from taking either of- these steps by the acts or representations of defendant’s agent. Had there been such evidence a different question would be presented.

With this additional comment, the judgment of the lower court is affirmed on Judge Brownson’S opinion.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A. 163, 118 Pa. Super. 582, 1935 Pa. Super. LEXIS 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-national-bank-v-newark-fire-insurance-pasuperct-1935.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack