Clemments v. German Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 November 1906 |
| Citation | 153 F. 237 |
| Parties | CLEMMENTS v. GERMAN INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
James T. Burney, for complainant.
Fyke & Snider, for defendant.
The above cause has been submitted to the court upon the pleadings and proof. A careful reading of the testimony and a consideration of the argument of counsel have not changed the views of the court, which were intimated at the close of the oral argument.
Under the decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case of Northern Assur. Co. v. Grand View Building Co., 183 U.S. 362, 22 Sup.Ct. 133, 46 L.Ed. 213,
no recovery could have been had upon the policy which the complainant seeks to have reformed, if all the insurance that was on the property described in the policy, on February 14 1903, had been correctly reported to the agent of the company who issued the policy, providing the information in regard to the other insurance had not been communicated to the company itself. In this case, however, it appears that the agent who issued the policy transmitted to the head officer of the company in his daily report a list of other insurance policies that were upon the property. The insurance company failed to make any objection to the other insurance, and allowed the policy to stand. So that the court has no hesitation in finding that, as to the policies which were actually reported to the company by the agent, there was an agreement between the company and the insured that the policy in question should stand as valid, notwithstanding the other policies upon the property; and the complainant has a clear right to have the policy reformed so as to contain a provision that the policies mentioned in the daily report should be excepted from the operation of that provision of the policy which rendered the policy void by reason of the taking of other insurance.
It appears that there was insurance to the extent of about $4,000 upon the property at the time the policy in question was issued, which was not reported by the agent to the company in his daily report. As to this insurance, the court cannot find that there was any contract between the company and the insured that the policy issued should be valid notwithstanding that insurance. An additional insurance of $4,000 was a very material matter for the insurance company to know, in view of the fact that there was a large insurance upon the property outside of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allen v. Phoenix Assurance Co.
...F. 781; Martin v. Ins. Co. of North America, 57 N.J.L. 623, 31 A. 213; Fries-Breslin Co. v. Starr Fire Ins. Co., 154 F. 35; Clemments v. German Ins. Co., 153 F. 237; Inv. Co. v. Shawnee Fire Ins. Co., 16 Okla. 1, 83 P. 918, 4 L. R. A., N. S., 607; Gish v. Ins. Co., 16 Okla. 59, 87 P. 869; C......
-
State ex rel. Barker v. Sage
... ... Law, 98; Fish v ... Olin, 76 Vt. 120; Relf v. Rundle, 103 U.S. 225; ... Parson v. Ins. Co., 31 F. 305; Gilman v ... Ketchum, 84 Wis. 69; Ford v. Gilbert, 44 Ore ... 262; ... ...
-
Schimmel Fur Co. v. American Indem. Co.
...is generally the agent of the insured; and Bennett v. Royal Union Mut. Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 112 S.W.2d 134, and Clemments v. German Ins. Co., W.D.Mo., 153 F. 237, dealing with limitations on an agent's authority. From these authorities, appellants argue that the relationship between the ......
- In re Kehler