Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

KOBIEROWSKI v. COMMONWEALTH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY (01/17/56)

January 17, 1956

KOBIEROWSKI
v.
COMMONWEALTH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT.



Appeal, No. 216, Oct. T., 1955, from judgment of Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, Sept. T., 1952, No. 968, in case of William C. Kobierowski v. Commonwealth Mutual Insurance Company of Pennsylvania. Judgment affirmed.

COUNSEL

J. Webster Jones, for appellant.

Donald M. Bowman, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P.j., Hirt, Ross, Wright, Woodside, and Ervin, JJ. (gunther, J., absent).

Author: Woodside

[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 569]

OPINION BY WOODSIDE, J.

This is an appeal from the judgment of the Municipal Court of Philadelphia for the plaintiff in the sum of $625 entered upon a verdict after the refusal of the court to grant judgment n.o.v. for the defendant. The action was brought in assumpsit and is based upon a policy of collision insurance.

The case was before us before. 175 Pa. Superior Ct. 387, 105 A.2d 179.

The undisputed facts are that on December 19, 1951 the defendant insurance company issued a policy of insurance to the plaintiff for comprehensive coverage with an added provision for collision insurance; the policy was endorsed to show that successive automobiles of the plaintiff were covered by the policy. When the plaintiff purchased a Chevrolet Sedan on April 8, 1952 he telephoned a girl employed in the office of the defendant's agent asking that a new endorsement be issued transferring his insurance coverages to the new automobile. Thereafter, the plaintiff's Chevrolet Sedan was almost completely demolished in a collision. Plaintiff notified the defendant insurance

[ 180 Pa. Super. Page 570]

    company and made demand for payment. The defendant refused to make payment claiming it had not been notified of an encumbrance which had been placed on the automobile.

The plaintiff testified that he called the insurance agency which had issued the policy and said: "... I just purchased a 1950 Chevrolet two-door sedan ... Willard Chevrolet is financing it ..."

It is the appellant's contention that because the insured said, "Willard Chevrolet is financing it" rather than, "Willard Chevrolet has an encumbrance upon it," the appellant had no notice or knowledge of an encumbrance by Willard and therefore since the policy ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.