No. 81-3-435, Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court of Pennsylvania at No. 956 October Term, 1979, entered January 23, 1981, affirming the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia, at No. 1258 October Term, 1974, entered December 13, 1978.
Andrew F. Mimnaugh, Philadelphia, for appellants.
Harry P. Begier, Philadelphia, for Reliance Ins. Co.
M. Stuart Goldin, Philadelphia, for Weinstein.
Roberts, C.j., and Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson and Zappala, JJ. Hutchinson, J., concurs in the result.
This is an appeal from an order of the Superior Court affirming judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia against appellant Partrick & Wilkins Co., the vendee under a land sale contract, and in favor of appellees, the vendors and their insurance companies. Following destruction of the premises by fire prior to settlement, suit was brought by appellant to collect the difference between the estimate of the fire losses arrived at by the appellant's adjuster and the estimate computed by the adjuster for the vendors. In entering judgment against appellant, the court of common pleas rejected appellant's theory that appellant's status as equitable owner of the property under the contract of sale required the vendors to use appellant's more favorable estimate of loss when filing a proof of loss statement with the vendors' insurers. We agree and hence affirm.
In 1967, appellant entered into a written contract for the purchase of a tract of land in Philadelphia owned by appellees John and Jettie Adams. Settlement was to occur on March 16, 1970, but was postponed when a dispute arose between the vendors and appellant. That dispute led to
legal action by appellant which resulted in the entry of a decree of specific performance by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia in favor of appellant. The decree was affirmed by this Court on appeal. Partrick and Wilkins Co. v. Adams, 471 Pa. 63, 369 A.2d 1195 (1977).
Subsequent to the date of the agreement of sale but prior to our affirmance of the decree of specific performance, two fires occurred on the premises, causing considerable damage to the building and its contents. At the time of the fires, both appellant and the vendors had fire insurance covering the premises: Appellant's insurance provided coverage in the amount of $130,000 for the building and ...