Shoemaker v. Commonwealth Bank

Shoemaker v. Commonwealth Bank - Contracts 9/10 Promissory...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Contracts 9/10 Promissory Estoppel Shoemaker v. Commonwealth Bank, Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1997 Facts : The Shoemakers obtained a $25,000 mortgage on their home from Commonwealth Bank. The mortgage agreement provided that the Shoemakers were required to “carry insurance” on their property. The Shoemakers allowed their insurance policy to expire, and their home subsequently was destroyed by a fire. The Shoemakers allege that Commonwealth sent them a letter dated January 20, 1994 informing them that their insurance had expired, and that if they did not purchase a new insurance policy, Commonwealth would do so and add the premiums to the balance of their mortgage. They also said a representative from Commonwealth called them on the phone to tell them Commonwealth would purchase an insurance policy. The Shoemakers then assumed that Commonwealth had purchased a new policy. Commonwealth, on the other hand, while not denying that it sent the letter, disputes the contents of the phone conversation. Commonwealth says it purchased an insurance policy
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/10/2011 for the course LAW 501 taught by Professor Roy during the Fall '08 term at University of Mississippi School of Law.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online