Appeal, No. 110, April T., 1959, from order of County Court of Allegheny County, No. 1488 of 1958, in case of Charles Perlman et al. v. Pittsburgh Cabinets & Builders Supplies, Inc. Order affirmed.
Meyer W. Gordon, with him Rothman, Gordon and Foreman, for appellant.
Richard S. Crone, with him Abe R. Cohen, and Crone and Cohen, for appellees.
Before Hirt, Gunther, Wright, Woodside, Ervin, and Watkins, JJ. (rhodes, P.j., absent).
[ 191 Pa. Super. Page 235]
This appeal is from an order of the County Court of Allegheny sustaining appellee's (plaintiff's) preliminary objections to appellant's (defendant's) answer and counterclaim.
[ 191 Pa. Super. Page 236]
Plaintiff as a partnership is an agent of New Amsterdam Casualty Company and other insurance companies in the writing of insurance. On April 9, 1957, New Amsterdam, through its agent the plaintiff, insured the defendant against loss caused by employe dishonesty. While the policy was in effect defendant incurred losses due to employe dishonesty. New Amsterdam was notified of the losses but refused to make payment.
Plaintiff brought suit in assumpsit against defendant for the balance of insurance premiums in the sum of $1,149.20, alleging that it obtained for defendant some twenty insurance policies and advanced its money for premiums due different companies.
Defendant's answer and counterclaim stated that if any sums were due, they were due to New Amsterdam only through its agent, the plaintiff herein.
The main question before us is whether a claim against New Amsterdam may be set off by defendant against the agent, where the agent sues in its own right for premiums advanced for policies covering defendant.
A review of the opinion of the court below and the authorities cited by both parties leads us to the conclusion the decision sustaining the ...