Barrette v. Cas. Co. of Am.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1918 |
| Citation | 104 A. 126 |
| Parties | BARRETTE v. CASUALTY CO. OF AMERICA et al. |
| Court | New Hampshire Supreme Court |
[Ed. Note—For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Cover.]
Transferred from Superior Court, Hillsborough County; Allen, Judge.
Bill in equity by Louise Barrette, administratrix, against the Casualty Company of America and another. Decrees in favor of plaintiff and defendant Dubray against the Casualty Company, and the Casualty Company excepted. Transferred from superior court. Exceptions overruled.
Bill in equity. Hearing by the court. Decrees for the plaintiff and for the defendant Dubray. The plaintiff's intestate, who was one of Dubray's employes was killed October 2, 1915, by the fall of a hoist or elevator on which he was riding, and she has recovered a judgment against him, which she is seeking to enforce against the defendant company in this proceeding. Dubray applied to the company for insurance against liability to his employes in April, 1915; but the policy, which was issued a month later, excepted risks like the one in question from its operation. The court found the company was estopped to deny that the policy covered this risk, and the company excepted.
Taggart, Wyman, McLane & Starr, of Manchester (L. E. Wyman, of Manchester, orally), for plaintiff. Streeter, Demond, Woodworth & Sulloway, of Concord, and Cyprean J. Belanger, of Manchester (Jonathan Piper, of Concord, orally), for defendants.
YOUNG, J.[1] Dubray, who had contracted to take down an old building and erect a new one, applied to the defendant company's local agent for insurance against liability to his employes while doing this work. The local agent transmitted his application to the company's general agent, who informed him (the local agent) that the company would "cover" Dubray. By that was intended that the company would protect Dubray or insure him against liability to his employes for all injuries they might sustain which were caused by the usual and ordinary risks of the business named in the application, unless and until the company notified him (Dubray) that it declined to underwrite them. The court has found that the general agent had authority to make this agreement, and that the risk incident to using a material hoist is one of the usual and ordinary risks of the business. Dubray, therefore, was insured against liability for accidents to his employes for a time at least. Whether this insurance had terminated at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Broadnax
...to him." Featherston v. Allstate Ins. Co., 125 Idaho 840, 843, 875 P.2d 937, 940 (1994). See also, Barrette v. Casualty Co. of America, 79 N.H. 59, 60, 104 A. 126, 127 (1918) ("[T]he company did absolutely nothing to notify [policyholder] Dubray [of the exclusion] ... [W]hen the company's l......
-
Louisiana Maintenance Services, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London
...to the insured. Spain, supra. Also see Moore v. Energy Mutual Insurance Company, 814 P.2d 1141 (Utah 1991), and Barrette v. Casualty Co. of America, 79 N.H. 59, 104 A. 126 (1918). Penalties LSA-R.S. 22:658 provides that a penalty of twelve percent, together with reasonable attorney's fees, ......
-
Commercial Cas. Ins. Co. v. Mansfield
...the accident occurred. Cf. also, National Liberty Ins. Co. v. Milligan, 9 Cir., 10 F.2d 483, 485 and cases cited; Barrette v. Casualty Company, 79 N.H. 59, 104 A. 126. The decision is square authority for the proposition that Cox could bind his company, but differs materially from what occu......
-
Roberts v. Maine Bonding and Cas. Co.
...coverage. Bituminous Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Izzy Rosen's, Inc., 493 F.2d 257, 260 (6th Cir. 1974). In Barrette v. Casualty Co. of America, 79 N.H. 59, 104 A. 126, 127 (1918), the insurance agent informed the insured that the insured's company would be "covered." In holding that a policy ......