Croft v. Bituminous Cas. Corp.
| Decision Date | 26 January 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 41007,41007 |
| Citation | 108 So.2d 700,235 Miss. 95 |
| Parties | W. C. CROFT, Jr. v. BITUMINOUS CASUALTY CORPORATION. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
George J. Thornton, Kosciusko, for appellant.
Rae Bryant, Gulfport, Crawley & Ford, Kosciusko, for appellee.
At the time of and prior to the enactment of the Mississippi Workmen's Compensation Act of 1948, Code 1942, Sec. 6998-01 et seq., the appellant W. C. Croft, Jr., was engaged in the operation of a portable sawmill. After the passage of the 1948 Workmen's Compensation Act he applied to the appellee Bituminous Casualty Corporation of New Orleans, Louisiana, for workmen's compensation insurance on his employees. The policy of insurance was issued beginning in 1949, and the coverage was annually renewed as originally applied for with the insurance premium based on a percentage of the payroll, etc. But in December 1953, prior to the expiration of his current policy on January 20, 1954, the insured was advised that the appellee would no longer write similar policies on portable sawmills. But the insured was advised by an agent of the insurer at Louisville, Mississippi that he could get from the insurer a new type of policy for the period of January 20, 1954, to January 20, 1955, where the annual premium would be calculated on a reptrospective basis depending upon whether he had a good loss year or a bad loss year. The agent wrote the insured that he would come to see him and explain the new type of policy since he could do so in person more satisfactorily than by a letter.
The agent called to see the insured and later testified at the trial that he fully explained to him the terms and provisions of the new type of policy, and the same was issued by the insurer at its office if New Orleans, and the premium paid.
It so happened that the insured had a good loss year in 1954 and that at the expiration of the term of that policy on January 20, 1955, the insured was entitled to and was paid a refund of $8.87.
Without any subsequent conversation between the agent and the insured the policy was renewed on January 20, 1955 for the period ending January 20, 1956, containing the provision that the premium would be calculated on the retrospective basis depending on whether he had a good loss year or a bad loss year.
It so happened that during that year the insured had compensation claims made against him, which were paid by the insurer, amounting to the total sum of $6,789. The insured had paid only the sum of $2,312 on the total premium of $4,300 for that year, leaving a balance of $1,988.
The proof disclosed without dispute that at the beginning of the period covered by this insurance policy the policy was received by the insured and placed among his other papers, but which policy he apparently did not ever read.
The insured did not contradict the fact that the agent had undertaken to explain the policy to him in person in the early part of 1954, but claimed that he didn't fully understand it and that it was not written like the policy that the agent had explained to him that he would get, but he further testified that the renewal policy issued January 20, 1955, covering the period until January 20, 1956, was not explained to him.
When the agent demanded the payment of the additional $1,988, the insured gave as his reason for refusing to pay the additional premium that the Company had cancelled out his insurance in December 1953. As a matter of fact the insurance was not cancelled but expired by its terms on January 20, 1954, when he took out the new type of policy which the agent had undertaken to explain to him in person.
The appellant assigns as error (1) that the trial court erred in overruling the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In Interest of T.L.C.
...that court abused that discretion and the Court is convinced that injustice will result therefrom. Croft v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 235 Miss. 95, 98-99, 108 So.2d 700, 701-02 (1959); Roberson v. Quave, 211 Miss. 398, 400, 51 So.2d 62, 63 The record reflects that this matter was originall......
-
Bay Springs Forest Products, Inc. v. Wade, 53790
...the trial judge has abused his discretion and unless we are satisfied that injustice has resulted therefrom. Croft v. Bituminous Casualty Corp., 235 Miss. 95, 108 So.2d 700 (1959); Roberson v. Quave, Sheriff, 211 Miss. 398, 51 So.2d 62 If anything, the trial judge here abused his discretion......
-
Ponder v. O'Neal Elec. Co.
...his cause. We have held repeatedly that the trial court has broad discretion over the question of continuances. Croft v. Bituminous Cas. Corp., 235 Miss. 95, 108 So.2d 700 (1959); Gallego v. State, 222 Miss. 719, 77 So.2d 321 (1955); and Continental Ins. Co. of City of New York v. Brown, 14......
- Mounger v. Pittman