American Ins. Co. of City of Newark, N. J., v. Inzer
| Decision Date | 13 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 7 Div. 737 |
| Citation | 216 Ala. 553,114 So. 187 |
| Parties | AMERICAN INS. CO. OF CITY OF NEWARK, N.J., v. INZER. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Etowah County; Woodson J. Martin, Judge.
Action by J.C. Inzer against the American Insurance Company of the City of Newark, N.J. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W.T Murphree, of Gadsden, for appellant.
Goodhue & Lusk, of Gadsden, for appellee.
The proof shows that Goddard was defendant's soliciting agent; that the policy had to be countersigned by him to become effective; that it was so countersigned and delivered to the insured. It also appears that Goddard took the insured's application and while preparing same was fully and fairly informed of the existence and status of the previous policy in the Home Company and informed said insured that said Home policy was not an existing one within the terms of the application and thereby induced him to state in the application that he had no other insurance. This conduct would, of course, estop Goddard from setting up the existence of the Home policy to defeat a recovery upon the present policy and would therefore estop this defendant, if Goddard was acting within the line and scope of his authority when receiving the information as to the Home policy and in explaining to and instructing the insured that it was not an existing policy within the meaning of the application as to other insurance. Goddard, who was defendant's soliciting agent and was directing the insured in the preparation of the application, was, no doubt, familiar with the questions involved, and the insured had a right to rely on the statement and information given him by defendant's agent in procuring the policy. Our court has held that an agent with authority to solicit or write insurance may waive a condition in the policy or estop the company from setting up certain conditions. AEtna Co. v. Kennedy, 161 Ala 600, 50 So. 73, 135 Am.St.Rep. 160; Brown v. Com. Ins Co., 86 Ala. 189, 5 So. 500. There seems to be a well-defined distinction between the authority of such an agent to waive conditions as to facts existing before or when the policy is issued and those which may arise after the policy is issued. Ala. State Mutual Co. v. Long Co., 123 Ala. 667, 26 So. 655.
The case of Robinson v. AEtna Co., 128 Ala. 477, 30 So 665, the chief case relied upon by appellant's counsel dealt with a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Roberts
... ... Hankins, ... supra; Freeman v. So. Life & Health Ins. Co., 210 Ala ... 459, 98 So. 461; Tullis v. Blue, 216 ... ...
-
American Equitable Assur. Co. v. Powderly Coal & Lumber Co.
...with such agreement and is guilty of no negligence in failing to examine the policy. Modern Woodmen of Am. v. Head, supra; Amer. Ins. Co. v. Inzer, supra. following observations of this court in Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Green, 223 Ala. 121, 134 So. 881, 884, are likewise applicable here......
-
Pryor v. Brown & Root USA, Inc.
... ... Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 349 So.2d 1110, 1111 (Ala.1977). Once the movant has ... ...
-
Brown v. K & M Tree Servs., Inc.
...98 So. 16 [ (1923) ] ; Freeman v. Southern, etc., Ins. Co., 210 Ala. 459, 98 So. 461 [ (1923) ].’ (Emphasis supplied.)" 216 Ala. at 578, 114 So. at 187."In Craft v. Koonce, 237 Ala. 552, 554, 187 So. 730, 731 (1939), the Court wrote:" ‘When plaintiff proves such ownership of the [vehicle] b......