American Steam-Boiler Ins. Co. v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 01 December 1891
• Citation: 29 N.E. 231,130 N.Y. 134
• Parties: AMERICAN STEAM-BOILER INS. CO. v. ANDERSON et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

130 N.Y. 134

29 N.E. 231

AMERICAN STEAM-BOILER INS. CO.

v.ANDERSON et al.

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division.

Dec. 1, 1891.

Cross-appeals from superior court of New York city, general term.

Action by the American Steam-Boiler Insurance Company against Edward C. Anderson and George S. Stanton for damages for procuring the cancellation of policies of insurance. From a judgment affirming a judgment entered on a verdict for plaintiff both parties appeal. Affirmed.

The other facts fully appear in the following statement by BRADLEY, J.:

In June, 1884, by an instrument executed by the parties, the plaintiff appointed the defendants as its managers an general agents for the states of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut, with some local exceptions. The defendants were empowered to issue policies, and as commissions to have 30 per cent. of the premiums received; either of the parties to terminate the agency at pleasure on 90 days' notice. In December, 1885, a further arrangement was made to the effect that the agreement creating such relation should cease and determine on January 1, 1886, ‘and from that date be null and void,’ saving any claim the plaintiff should then have against the defendants for unpaid accounts. As such agents the defendants, in December, 1884, made two policies to R. Hoe & Co., insuring them to the amount of $50,000 and $25,000,-$75,000,-for three years, upon buildings, engines, boilers, etc., against damages by explosion, for which a premium of $1,125 was paid, of which the defendants retained $337.50 for their commissions. Provision was made in the policies for their cancellation at any time at the request of the assured, and that in such event the plaintiff should retain the charges for inspection and the customary short rates for the term the policies had been in force. These policies were, at the request of the assured, canceled in March, 1887, and $118.13 of the premium were returned by the plaintiff, as required by the contract of insurance. The cancellation by R. Hoe & Co. was induced and procured by the solicitation of the defendants, who had then become the agents of the Hartford Steam-Boiler Insurance Company, and induced and procured that firm to take, in place thereof, insurance in the last-named company, in consequence of which the plaintiff was required to refund such portion of the premium. The purpose of this action was to recover damages of the defendants for thus causing the cancellation of the policies and the refunding of the amount repaid, for 30 per cent. of which, with interest, a verdict was directed for the plaintiff.

Robert Sewell, for plaintiff.

T. Henry Dudley, for defendants.

BRADLEY, J., ( after stating the facts.)

There was upon the evidence no controversy of fact, but the questions presented had relation to the legal consequences, as between the parties, of the action of the defendants in inducing and procuring the assured to surrender the plaintiff's policies of insurance, and to demand a rebate of the premium paid to it. The motive of the defendants for doing this does not appear, further than may be implied from the fact that the defendants also induced R. Hoe & Co., the assured, to take in lieu thereof insurance in the Hartford Steam-Boiler Insurance Company, which the defendants then represented. Their relation of agency to the plaintiff had terminated by the terms of their contract with it in that respect, and they had rightfully become the agents of the rival company in the business of like insurance. Their relation with the latter company required the defendants to subserve its interest faithfully and diligently, and...