Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 19259
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | STEVENS, J. |
| Citation | 76 So. 548,115 Miss. 561 |
| Parties | BIG CREEK DRUG COMPANY v. STUYVESANT INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Docket Number | 19259 |
| Decision Date | 15 October 1917 |
76 So. 548
115 Miss. 561
BIG CREEK DRUG COMPANY
v.
STUYVESANT INSURANCE COMPANY
No. 19259
Supreme Court of Mississippi
October 15, 1917
Division B
ON SUGGESTION OF ERROR. For former opinion, see 75 So. 768.
Suggestion of error overruled.
OPINION
STEVENS, J.
The suggestion of error must be overruled. The position of the court is, not that a soliciting agent may waive [115 Miss. 562] important provisions of the policy after the policy is executed and delivered and becomes a binding contract, but that the principal is bound by the knowledge possessed by the agent who inspects the risk and accepts the application for the insurance. We are dealing here with the status or condition of property when it is first inspected as a risk, existing conditions, and not with something to be done or left undone in the future. Any other construction, in our opinion, would violate section 2615, Code of 1906, defining an "agent" of an insurance company. It is there enacted that:
Any one "who shall examine or inspect any risk, or receive, collect or transmit any premium of insurance, etc., shall be held to be the agent of the company for which the act is done or the risk is taken as to all the duties and liabilities imposed by law, whatever conditions or stipulations may be contained in the policy or contract."
We are not called upon to declare all the purposes of this statute. One of its purposes certainly was to prevent fraudulent agencies. But it speaks the policy of our state, to bind the company for any act done by an agent within the scope of his duties. Here the socalled soliciting agent was fully authorized to inspect the risk and accept the business. This he did with full knowledge of the conditions and in the face of his representations that a fire proof safe was unnecessary. The [76 So. 549] question of fact as to these representations of the agent is a question for the jury. It is well settled that, if an insurance company, with full knowledge of the fact, accepts as a risk improved property which is vacant and unoccupied at the time the policy is delivered, the contract cannot be forfeited on account of the familiar stipulation against vacancy. In such case the same argument could be made as in the present case, to the effect that the soliciting agent has no authority to waive any of the provisions of the policy.
[115 Miss. 563] Counsel rely upon the case of Murphy v. Continental Insurance Co. (Iowa), 157 N.W. 855, L. R. A....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Lester, 31229
...97 Miss. 345, 52 So. 689; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 333, 76 So. 768; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 76 So. 548; Stewart v. Coleman, 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 120 Miss. 278, 82 So. 146. The condition (vacancy clause) i......
-
World Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. King, 33850
...to by insured. Moore v. La. Fire Ins. Co. (La.), 148 So. 905; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 333 and 561, 75 So. 768, 76 So. 548; Bias v. Globe & Rutgers Ins. Co. ( W.Va.), 101 S.E. 247; National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Davison (Ark.), 58 S.W.2d 691; Pierowicz v. Farme......
-
Fraternal Aid Union v. Whitehead, 21472
...Am. St. Rep. 326; L. & L. & [125 Miss. 176] G. Ins. Co. v. Sheffy, 71 Miss. 919, 16 So. 307; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 561, 76 So. 548; Stewart v. Coleman Co., 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653. If the facts in this case showed that the deceased had written the application......
-
Afro-American Sons And Daughters v. Webster, 31681
...67 Miss. 620, 19 Am. St. Rep. 326; L. & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Sheffy, 71 Miss. 919, 16 So. 307; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 561, 76 So. 548; Stewart v. Coleman Co., 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653; 45 C. J., sec. 14b, page 15; Modern Woodmen of America v. Head, 96 So. 219. T......
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Lester, 31229
...97 Miss. 345, 52 So. 689; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 333, 76 So. 768; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 76 So. 548; Stewart v. Coleman, 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 120 Miss. 278, 82 So. 146. The condition (vacancy clause) i......
-
World Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. King, 33850
...to by insured. Moore v. La. Fire Ins. Co. (La.), 148 So. 905; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 333 and 561, 75 So. 768, 76 So. 548; Bias v. Globe & Rutgers Ins. Co. ( W.Va.), 101 S.E. 247; National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Davison (Ark.), 58 S.W.2d 691; Pierowicz v. Farme......
-
Fraternal Aid Union v. Whitehead, 21472
...Am. St. Rep. 326; L. & L. & [125 Miss. 176] G. Ins. Co. v. Sheffy, 71 Miss. 919, 16 So. 307; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 561, 76 So. 548; Stewart v. Coleman Co., 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653. If the facts in this case showed that the deceased had written the application......
-
Afro-American Sons And Daughters v. Webster, 31681
...67 Miss. 620, 19 Am. St. Rep. 326; L. & L. & G. Ins. Co. v. Sheffy, 71 Miss. 919, 16 So. 307; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 561, 76 So. 548; Stewart v. Coleman Co., 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653; 45 C. J., sec. 14b, page 15; Modern Woodmen of America v. Head, 96 So. 219. T......