Opinion
April 27, 1937.
May 5, 1937.
Insurance — Fire insurance — Premiums — Payment — Ambiguity — Construction of contract — Question for jury.
Where the provisions of an insurance policy with respect to the premiums to be paid by the insured were ambiguous, evidence was properly admitted to help to determine its meaning, and the question of the meaning of the contract, under the circumstances present, was for the jury, not the court.
Appeal, No. 25, April T., 1937, from judgment of County Court, Allegheny Co., 1929, No. 1442, in case of Agricultural Insurance Company, of Watertown, N.Y., v. Pittsburgh Refrigeration Corporation.
Before KELLER, P.J., CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER, JAMES and RHODES, JJ. Judgment affirmed.
Assumpsit on insurance policy. Before PIEKARSKI, J.
Verdict and judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were the refusal to enter judgment for plaintiff n.o.v., and the dismissal of plaintiff's motion for new trial.
Harry R. Levy, of Kaufman Levy, for appellant.
Frank S. Delp, for appellee, was not heard.
Argued, April 27, 1937.
We agree with the learned court below that the provisions of the policy with respect to the premiums to be paid by the insured were too ambiguous, uncertain and indefinite to warrant a directed verdict. The plaintiff has only itself to blame if it fails to make its policy contract so clear and explicit as to make its construction a matter for the court instead of a jury.
Under the circumstances here present it was for the jury, not the court, to say what the meaning of the contract was, and evidence was properly admitted, not to contradict the terms of the policy, but to help the jury to determine what its ambiguous provisions meant — not to set it aside, but to clarify its uncertainty.
The judgment is affirmed.