be liable. But under the facts of the present case the Mount Joy company contends that at most it can be liable for no more than three-fourths of the loss under a clause in its policy, which reads:
'* * * it is expressly stipulated and made a condition of the contract that, in the event of loss or damage by fire to the buildings covered under this policy, this company shall not be liable for an amount greater than three-fourths ( 3/4 ) of the actual cash value of the buildings covered by this policy * * *'
Since the actual cash value of the building in the present case was $ 12,000 it is clear that Mount Joy Insurance Company's liability, by reason of this clause, is only $ 9,000.
The Mount Joy company also points to another clause in its policy, which reads:
'Pro Rata Liability- this company shall not be liable for a greater proportion of any loss than the amount hereby insured shall bear to the whole insurance covering the property against the peril involved, whether collectible or not.'
It contends that this clause applies to the present case and that its effect is to reduce its liability to $ 6,000.
The 'pro rata liability' clause, like the 'other insurance' clause applies only where the insurance is on the same interest. The loss in the present case was sustained by two different people. It is clear from reading the Mount Joy policy in its entirety that the insurance was not to be diminished by the presence of other insurance on another interest in the property.
The parties have agreed that no interest will be due until judgment is entered.
The statements of fact and law contained in this opinion will constitute the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law in the case.
And now, September 8, 1953, in accordance with the foregoing opinion, it is Ordered that judgment be and it hereby is entered in favor of the plaintiffs in the sum of $ 6,000 against defendant Northern Assurance Co., Ltd., and against defendant Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Company in the sum of $ 9,000.