Insurance — Theft insurance — Policy — Terms — Construction — Conditions precedent.
In this action of assumpsit upon a policy insuring plaintiff against loss directly caused by theft, in which it appeared that the policy provided "In consideration of the rate at which this Insurance is written, it is a condition precedent to the liability of the Insurer hereunder . . . that all the Babaco equipment protecting the cargo compartment of each vehicle equipped as aforesaid shall be in the `on' position while merchandise is contained in said compartment except with respect to any . . . trailer . . . which is actually being loaded, and/or unloaded" and further provided "Failure of the insured to comply with any of the foregoing conditions precedent in any instance shall render the policy null and void"; and it affirmatively appeared in the plaintiff's case in chief that while the plaintiff's tractor-trailer was parked on the street waiting to be unloaded and with the sealed load alarm in the "off" position two armed robbers stole the tractor-trailer containing the cargo, it was Held that (1) plaintiff's noncompliance with the condition precedent rendered the policy void, (2) the doctrine of substantial compliance was inapplicable to the facts, and (3) the court below had properly entered judgment non obstante veredicto for the defendant.
OPINION PER CURIAM, May 21, 1962:
Judgment affirmed on opinion of President Judge WILLIAM G. BARTHOLD, 27 Pa. D. C.2d 55.