Citation Numbers: 169 A. 385, 111 Pa. Super. 61
Judges: OPINION BY BALDRIGE, J., December 16, 1933:
Filed Date: 10/2/1933
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Argued October 2, 1933. This action was brought on an insurance policy, in the sum of $1,800, covering a two-story frame house and contents, issued by the defendant on June 16, 1926, effective for a period of five years. The house was occupied by the plaintiff and her husband until 1928, when he died, and she continued to occupy it until May, 1929. During the life of the husband, kerosene in a metal drum of a capacity of 50 gallons was kept in the cellar. This property, used as a home, is in a *Page 63 rural district, and the kerosene no doubt was kept primarily for their own use. The few sales of kerosene that were made were evidently to accommodate their neighbors. The plaintiff vacated the house in 1929 and leased it to Floyd Sprague, who remained in it for one year, when the plaintiff again took possession of it. Sprague also kept some kerosene on the premises, not exceeding 15 gallons at a time. But there is no evidence that any kerosene was on the premises after plaintiff resumed possession in June, 1930. During the summer of 1930 the defendant recognized that the insurance was in force by paying a small claim for loss sustained through a hail storm, and, in January, 1931, made an assessment on the policy, collecting from the plaintiff the sum of $12.40.
A fire entirely destroyed the premises on April 3, 1931. Suit was brought, and the only defense set up was that the house had been vacant for more than ten days. On the second day of the trial, the defendant abandoned its original position and filed an additional affidavit of defense by permission of the court, alleging that kerosene was kept on the premises, contrary to the provisions of the policy and in violation of the regulations of the Pennsylvania State Police, governing the storage of kerosene, etc. The court held that there was no evidence of any violation of the law or the provisions of the policy, and submitted to the jury the other issues of fact, consisting of alleged fraud and the amount of the loss. A verdict for the plaintiff of $1,378 was rendered. This appeal followed.
The sole question raised by the appeal is whether the storing of kerosene on the premises, as disclosed by the record, defeated the plaintiff's right of recovery. The policy provided that it should be annulled if the insured kept "petroleum, or any of its products of greater inflammability than kerosene oil of the United States standard (which last may be used for lights and kept for sale according to law but in quantities *Page 64
not exceeding five barrels, provided it be drawn and lamps filled by daylight or at a distance not less than ten feet from artificial light.)" Certain rules and regulations adopted by the state police, under the authority of section 1 of the Act of April 27, 1927, P.L. 450, No. 291 (
We think the principle involved is ruled by McClure v. Mutual Fire Ins. Co.,
The appellant relies largely upon the case of Kramer v. Rhode Island Ins. Co.,
This disposes of the only issue raised in the statement of the questions involved.
Judgment is affirmed.