Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Hutson
| Decision Date | 13 April 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 35949,35949 |
| Citation | 271 P.2d 722 |
| Parties | COMMONWEALTH LIFE INS. CO. v. HUTSON. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. By virtue of 12 O.S.1951 § 134, an action against a domestic insurance company may be brought in the county where the cause of action or some part thereof arose.
2. Soliciting agent of insurer, even though he is without power to issue policies, is insurer's agent in taking applications, with full power and authority as to such applications, and acts performed and knowledge received and acted upon by him in connection with applications are binding on insurer, in the absence of fraud or collusion between agent and applicants.
Harry L. Dyer, William K. Powers, Deryl Lee Gotcher, John T. Gibson, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
Allen G. Nichols, Walter Billingsley, Wewoka, for defendant in error.
This action was commenced by Jack T. Hutson, hereinafter called plaintiff to recover against the defendant, Commonwealth Life Insurance Company, on an insurance contract. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
The record discloses that Lela Hutson, the mother of plaintiff, purchased an insurance contract from defendant to cover liability for certain diseases. She testified that on August 5, 1949, she purchased a contract from W. T. Campbell, local insurance agent at Wewoka, Oklahoma. This policy was taken out for her son who was in the military service. The contract under date of August 6, 1949, was mailed to her from the home office at Tulsa, Oklahoma. She paid the agent Campbell $10 for the policy on August 5, and at that time informed him that plaintiff's family consisted of himself, his wife, Betty Lou Hutson, and a son, Charles Edward Hutson; that plaintiff's wife was pregnant and expected a baby approximately six months from the date. The agent told her that the new born child would be automatically covered when born. She further testified she saw the agent in April and May thereafter and told him the child was born on February 25, 1950; that the agent again informed her on both of these occasions that the child, Linda Lee Hutson was automatically covered by the policy. The child was born February 25, 1950 as stated by the witness above. Between June 2 and June 5, 1950, Linda Lee Hutson was stricken with poliomyelitis and encephalitis.
The agent testified that he had no recollection of the conversations of April and May of 1950 but admitted that he was informed at the time of the application for the policy by Lela Hutson that the wife of plaintiff expected a child. He further testified that sometime before June 9, 1950, he was informed the child had been born and addressed a letter on June 9 to the defendant so informing it. This letter was received by defendant and defendant endorsed on the policy the name of Linda Lee Hutson on June 14, 1950. A letter dated June 12, 1950 was introduced in evidence. This letter informed the defendant that Linda Lee Hutson had suffered a disease listed by the policy. This letter was never received by defendant but by some method was misdirected and finally found its way into the possession of Lela Hutson. It is not denied that Linda Lee Hutson suffered from a disease listed in the policy and the amount of judgment is not in dispute in this appeal.
It is first argued that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the defendant and that the court erred in overruling the motion to quash and erred in failing to sustain the plea to the jurisdiction. It is contended that under the provisions of 12 O.S.1951 § 134, the action must be brought where defendant has its principal office or place of business or in which the principal officers may reside or be summoned or in the county where the cause of action or some part thereof arose; that none of these conditions were met. This contention cannot be sustained. The policy should be construed so that the child, by reason of the statements made in relation to the application, is considered included in the policy. The action therefore is for a person covered by the policy. The cause of action arose in Seminole County and the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Willis v. Midland Risk Ins. Co., 92-5147
...agent can bind his company in matters pertaining to the taking and preparation of applications for insurance); Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Hutson, 271 P.2d 722, 724 (Okla.1954) (company was bound by its soliciting agent's representation that new baby was automatically included in policy);......
-
A-OK Const., Inc. v. McEldowney, McWilliams, Deardeuff, & Journey, Inc.
...v. Richardson, 470 P.2d 330 (Okl.1970); Farmers Ed. and Coop. Union of America v. Bell, 366 P.2d 765 (Okl.1961); Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Hutson, 271 P.2d 722 (Okl.1954).See also, Hall v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 713 P.2d 1027 (Okl.1985); Moran v. Loeffler-Greene Supply Co., 316 P.2d 132 (O......
-
American-First Title & Trust Co. v. First Federal Sav. & Loan Ass'n of Coffeyville, Kan.
...which First Federal sustained loss, against which American-First had agreed but failed to defend or make whole. In Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Hutson, Okl., 271 P.2d 722, the insurer appealed from a judgment rendered in Seminole County District Court for the proceeds of a family polio pol......
-
Houston Fire & Casualty Insurance Co. v. Jones
...to matters within the limited scope of his authority concerned with the preparation of applications for insurance, Commonwealth Life Ins. Co. v. Hutson, Okl., 271 P.2d 722; North American Accident Ins. Co. v. Canady, 196 Okl. 105, 163 P.2d 221; Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Roysden, 208 ......