Davis Scofield Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 07 March 1929 |
| Citation | 109 Conn. 686,145 A. 42 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | DAVIS SCOFIELD CO. v. RELIANCE INS. CO. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Alfred E. Baldwin Judge.
Action by the Davis Scofield Company against the Reliance Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance to recover for loss of stock, fixtures, and furniture destroyed by fire. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. No error.
All of the facts in the companion action by the plaintiff against the defendant (145 A. 38) were incorporated in a common finding and made equally applicable to the present action by the plaintiff against the defendant herein. In addition, the court found the following facts applicable solely to the action against the defendant. Scofield was advised that it would be necessary for plaintiff to prepare an inventory of its stock on hand as of the date of the fire; he thereupon prepared an inventory of stock on hand amounting to $24,585.82. The plaintiff was further advised that it would be necessary to prepare an inventory based upon the books of plaintiff, and one of plaintiff's stockholders prepared such book inventory showing stock on hand at the time of the fire amounting to $26,251.15, made up from the monthly inventory reports submitted to R. G. Davis & Sons, Inc., as referred to in the statement in the companion cases, and from the books of account of the plaintiff. Scofield and Davis in behalf of plaintiff subsequently claimed to defendant that the total loss was in excess of $20,000, the total amount of the insurance, and in support of this claim submitted these physical and book inventories. The physical inventory so presented was $14,000 and the book inventory $16,000 in excess of the amount of stock on hand at the time of the fire. Both inventories were false and fraudulent as well as the claim made that plaintiff had sustained a loss in excess of $20,000. The plaintiff by Scofield presented these inventories and this claim knowing they were false and for the purpose of defrauding the defendant and to cover Scofield's embezzlements from the plaintiff. The insurers subsequently found that the stock then on hand amounted to $10,000 and the loss to plaintiff amounted to $6,891.15. Thereafter the defendant met Scofield, Harvey, and Davis acting in behalf of plaintiff, and they then admitted the falsity of plaintiff's claim of loss and of the inventories, and thereupon a nonwaiver agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant by which it was agreed the stock at the time of the fire amounted to $10,000 and the loss to the stock as a result of the fire amounted to $6,891.15. Subsequently the plaintiff by Davis made and delivered to defendant sworn proofs of loss as required by the policy, in which it stated that no attempt had been made to deceive the defendant as to the extent of the loss. The plaintiff by its agent, Scofield, attempted to deceive the defendant with respect to the extent of the loss through the claim of loss and the inventories. Neither of the Messrs Davis (the officers of plaintiff) at any time attempted to deceive the defendant in regard to the loss. They were ignorant of Scofield's falsification of the books, of his embezzlement, and of his attempts to burn plaintiff's plant, until shortly after the insurers made their discoveries.
Insured intrusting settlement of fire loss to agent who intentionally falsified proofs of loss and inventories could not recover upon policy by showing ignorance of fraud. Gen.St.1918, § 4075 (repealed).
Philip Pond and Joseph B. Morse, both of New Haven, for appellant.
Abraham Wofsey, Michael Wofsey, and Samuel Gordon all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bauco v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., No. 375290 (Conn. Super. 3/3/2004)
...of fact; see Rego v. Connecticut Insurance Placement Facility, supra, 219 Conn. 346; not of opinion. Davis-Scofield Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 109 Conn. 686, 689, 145 A.42 (1929); Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pizza Connection, Inc., 55 Conn.App. 488, 496, 740 A.2d 408 "The requirement that......
-
Rego v. Connecticut Ins. Placement Facility, 14133
...elements of which are distinct from an insurer's defense of concealment or misrepresentation. Compare Davis-Scofield Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 109 Conn. 686, 689-90, 145 A. 42 (1929) (elements of concealment or misrepresentation defense) and Kilduff v. Adams, Inc., supra (elements of common......
-
Nuffer v. Insurance Co. of North America
...Works v. Ins. Co., 98 Cal. 557, 575, 33 P. 633; Hyland v. Millers Nat. Ins. Co., 9 Cir., 58 F.2d 1003, 1006; Davis Scofield Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 109 Conn. 686, 145 A. 42; Bockser v. Dorchester Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 327 Mass. 473, 99 N.E.2d 640, 24 A.L.R.2d 1215; Mick v. Royal Exch. Assur......
-
Presta v. Monnier
...answers of the defendant, regardless of the scope or existence of any other agency relationship between them. Davis-Scofield Co. v. Reliance Ins. Co., 109 Conn. 686, 690, 145 A. 42; see cases such as Ezzo v. Geremiah, 107 Conn. 670, 680, 142 A. 461. Independently of this, since Mrs. Mercier......