Puro v. Franklin Fire Insurance

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Puro v. Franklin Fire Insurance

83 Pa. Super. 164, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 86

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 13, 1924

DocketAppeal, 36

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 83 Pa. Super. 164 (Puro v. Franklin 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

Puro v. Franklin Fire Insurance, 83 Pa. Super. 164, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 86 (Pa. Ct. App. 1924).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

It is not necessary for us to pass in detail upon the twenty-two assignments of error filed in this appeal or to review at length the various rulings upon evidence of the court below which are objected to here; for the reason that the plaintiff’s own undisputed testimony justified the trial court in giving binding instructions in favor of the defendant, and'his offers of evidence, to which objections were sustained, if admitted, would not have changed the situation.

The action was in assumpsit upon a policy of insurance insuring the plaintiff in the sum of $600 against loss or damage from fire and theft to a Dodge automobile truck, which was stolen while the policy was in force.

One of the warranties in the policy, on the faith of which it was issued, was that the actual cost to the assured of the automobile, including equipment, was $650. The plaintiff admitted that he bought the truck from the United States Government for $65; but sought to show that at the time the policy was taken out, he expected to fix it up at a cost of $650, and that after the policy was issued he did spend that amount upon it in repairs.

We agree with the learned trial judge that the warranty related to the cost to the assured of the truck at the time the policy was obtained: State Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Arthur, 30 Pa. 315, 331; 32 C. J. 1296; and that if it was then false in fact the policy was avoided: Benvenuto v. Central Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 213; Smith v. Ins. Co., 24 Pa. 320. The plaintiff did not testify, nor offer to prove, that he had informed defendant’s agent of the true cost of the truck: Sitler v. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Pa. Superior Ct. 148, 155. On the authority of the Benvenuto case and Goldberg v. Knickerbocker Ins. Co., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 302, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

It is not necessary for us to pass in detail upon the twenty-two assignments of error filed in this appeal or to review at length the various rulings upon evidence of the court below which are objected to here; for the reason that the plaintiff’s own undisputed testimony justified the trial court in giving binding instructions in favor of the defendant, and'his offers of evidence, to which objections were sustained, if admitted, would not have changed the situation.

The action was in assumpsit upon a policy of insurance insuring the plaintiff in the sum of $600 against loss or damage from fire and theft to a Dodge automobile truck, which was stolen while the policy was in force.

One of the warranties in the policy, on the faith of which it was issued, was that the actual cost to the assured of the automobile, including equipment, was $650. The plaintiff admitted that he bought the truck from the United States Government for $65; but sought to show that at the time the policy was taken out, he expected to fix it up at a cost of $650, and that after the policy was issued he did spend that amount upon it in repairs.

We agree with the learned trial judge that the warranty related to the cost to the assured of the truck at the time the policy was obtained: State Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Arthur, 30 Pa. 315, 331; 32 C. J. 1296; and that if it was then false in fact the policy was avoided: Benvenuto v. Central Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co., 80 Pa. Superior Ct. 213; Smith v. Ins. Co., 24 Pa. 320. The plaintiff did not testify, nor offer to prove, that he had informed defendant’s agent of the true cost of the truck: Sitler v. Fire Ins. Co., 18 Pa. Superior Ct. 148, 155. On the authority of the Benvenuto case and Goldberg v. Knickerbocker Ins. Co., 82 Pa. Superior Ct. 302, the judgment must be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 Pa. Super. 164, 1924 Pa. Super. LEXIS 86, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/puro-v-franklin-fire-insurance-pasuperct-1924.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack