Bankers Lloyds v. Montgomery
| Decision Date | 26 May 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 1660-6124.,1660-6124. |
| Citation | 60 S.W.2d 201 |
| Parties | BANKERS LLOYDS v. MONTGOMERY et al. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Scarborough, Ely & King, of Abilene, for plaintiff in error.
Cox & Hayden, of Abilene, for defendants in error.
J. E. Montgomery filed this suit against the Bankers Lloyds to recover workmen's compensation for injuries received by him while an employee of the Taylor Gin Company. He recovered judgment for the sum of $2,410. The Court of Civil Appeals at Eastland affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 42 S.W.(2d) 285.
The writ of error in this cause was granted upon the proposition that the trial court erred in refusing to peremptorily instruct the jury to return a verdict for plaintiff in error, because the undisputed evidence showed that defendant in error was not injured during the time that the policy was in force and that the Court of Civil Appeals erred in sustaining the action of the trial court. An affirmative decision of this question is decisive of the case.
The following controlling facts appear: On August 31, 1929, John Cox, an insurance agent of Abilene, Tex., proposed to the Taylor Gin Company to procure for them, upon certain terms, a policy of compensation insurance. Cox's proposal was accepted, and, being without application blanks, made a memorandum in writing of the facts necessary to have the policy written and agreed that the insurance would be in effect from that date. This memorandum was transmitted to Bankers Lloyds at its Dallas office, with a letter dated August 31, 1929, requesting that a policy be issued as of that date. The request was not received by Bankers Lloyds until September 3, 1929. The Bankers Lloyds did not issue the policy in compliance with the request, but instead prepared a formal application to be signed by the Taylor Gin Company, which, with a policy dated September 10, 1929, was sent to Cox to have the application signed and the policy delivered, which was done. The policy contained the following provisions: "The period during which the policy shall remain in force, unless cancelled as in the policy provided, (herein called the Policy Period) shall be from August 31st, 1929, to August 31st, 1930, at twelve and one minute o'clock a. m. Standard time as to each of said dates, at the place where any operation covered hereby is conducted," etc.
The testimony is undisputed that on the afternoon of August 31, 1929, Montgomery received the injury for which compensation is claimed; that Cox had notice of the injury at least as early as September 2, 1922; that other than the notice of Cox the Bankers Lloyds had no notice of the injury to Montgomery until after the policy was issued and delivered; that Cox had no authority to issue policies of compensation insurance, and there was no evidence or findings tending to show that he had authority to make any kind of a contract for compensation insurance; that, when he had a customer for compensation insurance, he would forward the application to the home office at Dallas and that the company itself would write the policy, if it approved same, but that he had no authority to write the policy. The foregoing statement of the evidence will be sufficient for the purposes of this opinion.
The evidence raises this question, Can the insurance company be bound for an injury that occurred prior to the issuance of the policy when the company had no knowledge that the injury had occurred?
In Cooley's Briefs on the Law of Insurance, vol. 1, p. 347, the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Condict
...10 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind.1937); United States Casualty Co. v. Rodrigues, 288 S.W. 487, 488 (Tex.Civ.App.1926); Bankers Lloyds v. Montgomery, 60 S.W.2d 201, 202 (Tex.1933); 4 Appleman, § 2291. See also Annot., 132 A.L.R. 1325, 1327 (1941). It has been stated that "To hold otherwise would be t......
-
Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Cost
...The question whether a witness is totally incapacitated as the result of injury is one of fact, not one of law. Bankers Lloyds v. Montgomery, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 285, 287, reversed on another point, Tex. Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 201. It calls for expression of an opinion as to physical condi......
-
Bankers Life & Loan Ass'n of Dallas v. Wood
...that I am in excellent health at this time." Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Evans, Tex.Civ. App., 214 S.W. 598; Bankers Lloyds v. Montgomery, Tex.Com.App., 60 S.W.2d 201; Southern Surety Co. v. Benton, Tex. Com.App., 280 S.W. 551; Home Benefit Ass'n v. Griffin, Tex.Civ.App., 10 S.W.2d 5......
-
Federal Underwriters Exchange v. Cost
...Tex.Civ.App., 259 S.W. 236; Southern Underwriters v. Knight, Tex.Civ.App., 107 S.W.2d 1097, writ dismissed; Bankers Lloyds v. Montgomery, Tex.Civ.App., 42 S.W.2d 285, this case was reversed on a question of agency—holding on the admissibility of expert testimony was not disturbed. Tex.Com.A......