Columbia Cas. Co. v. Ingram
| Decision Date | 02 February 1928 |
| Docket Number | 88. |
| Citation | 140 A. 601,154 Md. 360 |
| Parties | COLUMBIA CASUALTY CO. v. INGRAM. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Baltimore City Court; Albert S. J. Owens, Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Thomas L. Ingram against the Columbia Casualty Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before BOND, C.J., and PATTISON, URNER, ADKINS, OFFUTT DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
William D. Macmillan, of Baltimore (Semmes, Bowen & Semmes, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellant.
E. Paul Mason, of Baltimore (Robert J. MacGregor, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
The Columbia Casualty Company insured the Colonial Carpet Cleaning Company "against loss from the liability imposed by law upon the assured for damages, on account of bodily injuries, * * * accidentally suffered, * * * by any person or persons * * * as a result of the ownership maintenance, or use" of a designated automobile. The contract of insurance included an agreement by the insurer to investigate accidents covered by its terms, to negotiate settlement of claims, and to defend suits for damages, on account of such accidents, on behalf of the assured. It was provided in the policy that, upon the occurrence of an accident involving bodily injuries or death, the assured should "give prompt written notice thereof, with the fullest information obtainable at the time," to one of the insurer's authorized agents; that the assured should "give like notice with full particulars of any claim made on account of such accident"; and that, if suit were brought against the assured to enforce such claim, the summons or other process should be "promptly" forwarded by the assured to the home office of the insurer. Provision was made in the policy for an action against the insurer by a person obtaining a judgment against the assured for damages resulting from an accident covered by the insurance, in the event that execution on the judgment should be returned unsatisfied. This is a suit upon such a judgment and the principal question is whether an alleged failure of the assured to give prompt written notice of the accident to the insurer was waived by its conduct in taking charge for a time of the defense to the suit in which the judgment against the assured was rendered. The insurer sought to have the question of waiver determined as one of law by an instruction to the jury that there was no legally sufficient evidence to show that any of the insurer's rights under the policy had been waived, while the plaintiff submitted an instruction permitting the jury to infer a waiver if they found certain facts. The court below granted the plaintiff's prayer on the subject of waiver, and refused the insurer's prayer to withdraw the question from the jury.
There is evidence in the record tending to prove that written notice of the accident was given by the assured to the insurer ten days after it occurred. There is no exception requiring a decision upon the question as to whether such a notice was "prompt" within the intent of the policy. While prayers were offered by the insurer on the theory that the notice was not promptly given, they sought a directed verdict in its favor on that ground without making any reference to the waiver issue. Those prayers, therefore could not properly have been granted, if there was legally sufficient evidence of facts from which an inference of waiver might be drawn, and we agree with the conclusion of the trial court upon that subject.
After receiving from the assured written notice of the accident and papers in the suit on account of personal injuries thereby caused, the insurer wrote a letter to the assured stating in effect that the report of the accident and transmission of the suit papers had been unduly delayed, and that they were accepted "only under a full reservation" of the insurer's rights under the insurance contract. The letter thus concluded: "We will proceed with an investigation of the facts in the case, but without waiving any of the said rights." The case was at once assigned by the insurer to one of its agents for investigation, and two days after it was so assigned the counsel for the insurer entered his appearance in the suit, and filed general issue pleas. The general manager of the assured, according to his testimony, was informed by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Antigua Condominium Ass'n v. Melba Investors Atlantic, Inc.
...without a reservation of rights, waive the failure of the insured to give prompt notice of the accident. See Columbia Casualty Co. v. Ingram, 154 Md. 360, 140 A. 601 (1928); London & Lancashire Indemnity Co. v. Cosgriff, 144 Md. 660, 125 A. 529 (1924). Indeed, a party to a contract may waiv......
-
American Cas. Co. v. Purcella
... ... at an end, if the insurer so elected." Koontz v ... General Casualty Co., 162 Wash. 77, 297 P. 1081 ... [163 A. 872] ... In Columbia Casualty Co. v. Ingram, 154 Md. 360, 140 ... A. 601, the insurer contested a suit on a judgment of a third ... party against the insured, on the ... ...
-
Hankins v. Public Service Mut. Ins. Co.
...company waived the alleged neglect of the insured to report the accident promptly, yet under the authority of the case of Columbia Casualty Co. v. Ingram, supra, the trial judge well have decided that the long delay of the insurance company in determining its liability under the policy and ......
-
American Fidelity & Cas. Co., Inc. v. Mahon
...the foundation of the suit. As this court can only review questions decided in the trial court, Code, art. 5, § 10, the decision in 154 Md. 360, 140 A. 601, is not a precedent the case here presented. The plaintiff's chief reliance for his contention that liability extends to a husband for ......