Arnold v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 February 1901 |
| Citation | 61 S.W. 1032 |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
| Parties | ARNOLD v. ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. CO. |
Appeal from chancery court, Davidson county; H. H. Cook, Chancellor.
Action by William Arnold against the St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
W. D. Covington, for appellant. C. C. Slaughter, for appellee.
This is a suit upon a policy of fire insurance. The chancellor and the court of chancery appeals concurred in adjudging the policy noncollectible upon the ground of double insurance. The complainant has again appealed.
The policy contained this clause, to wit: "This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed hereon, shall be void if the insured now has, or shall hereafter make or procure, any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by this policy." The case was decided on demurrer. The bill alleged that complainant was the owner of certain household goods and furniture, that he spoke to a friend about having them insured, and that on the 11th of October this friend took out a policy for him in defendant company. Complainant, however, alleges that his friend had failed to inform him that he had procured this insurance, and that, in ignorance of this fact, complainant on November 1, 1899, — 19 days thereafter, — also procured a policy on the same goods in the Williamsburg Fire Insurance Company. It is further shown that on the night of November 27, 1899, this property was destroyed by fire; that on the morning after the fire agents representing both companies called to adjust the loss, and then it was, for the first time, that complainant learned that his friend had taken out a policy for him. Complainant undertook to explain to the agents how this double insurance happened, but both disclaimed any liability and repudiated the policies. Complainant alleges in his bill that the double insurance was unintentional and an innocent mistake; that complainant did not see his friend from the time he agreed to procure a policy for him until after the fire, nor did he know the first policy had been issued; that, not hearing from his friend, and in ignorance of the issuance of the first policy, and believing that his property had not been insured, complainant took out a policy on November 1, 1899. The present suit is upon the policy taken out by the agent.
It will be observed from the allegations of the bill, which, of course, are admitted to be true on demurrer, that complainant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Norwich Union Fire Ins. Society v. Dalton
...authority of the agent. Neither was ratification in the sense in which we are here discussing it, involved in Arnold v. Insurance Co., 106 Tenn. 529, 61 S. W. 1032. There the plaintiff had requested a friend to obtain insurance for him. The policy thus obtained contained a clause that, if a......
-
Webber, Jr. v. State Farm Mutual Insurance
...a motion for summary judgment unless a reasonable person could only reach one conclusion. 4 See also Arnold v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 106 Tenn. 529, 532, 61 S.W. 1032, 1033 (1901) ("Complainant has ratified the act of his agent by bringing suit on the policy procured by him, and i......
-
Cole v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co.
...plead it to avoid a forfeiture. Jackson Bldg. & Loan Ass'n v. Fire & Life Ins. Co., 173 Tenn. 160, 164, 116 S.W. 2d 995; Arnold v. Ins. Co., 106 Tenn. 529, 61 S.W. 1032. The rule is no less applicable to an insurer. Monahan v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 103 Md. 145, 63 A. 211, 5 L.R.A.,N.S., 759......
-
Aaberg v. Minnesota Commercial Men's Ass'n, 24209.
...loss, provided it was given with reasonable diligence after the additional insurance was obtained. The policy in Arnold v. Insurance Co., 106 Tenn. 529, 61 S. W. 1032, contained a provision that it "should be void if the insured now has, or shall hereafter make or procure, any other contrac......