Donnelly v. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 21 June 1886
• Citation: 70 Iowa 693,28 N.W. 607
• Parties: DONNELLY v. CEDAR RAPIDS INS. CO.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

70 Iowa 693

28 N.W. 607

DONNELLY

v.CEDAR RAPIDS INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 21, 1886.

Appeal from Cedar Rapids circuit court.

Action on a policy of insurance against loss or damage by fire. Trial by jury, and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant appeals.Deacon & Smith, for appellant.

Wolf & Landt and Piatt & Carr, for appellee.

SEEVERS, J.

The property insured consisted of a house, and certain personal property therein. The application for the policy, which was signed by the plaintiff, contained certain statements which were made warranties, and among which were the following: That the house was of the cash value of $3,000, and that it was built in 1872; and certain additions thereto were constructed in 1880; and that there was $500 insurance in another company on the personal property. The jury found specially that the value of the house was $2,000, and that it was originally constructed in 1844, and rebuilt in 1865 or 1866, and the additions at a later date. It is not claimed there was any insurance in another company. Under these findings, it must be conceded that the foregoing statements were false. The jury further found specially that the plaintiff signed “the application in blank, and left it with the agent, Hersey,” and that the latter filled “up the application, and wrote out the answers to the questions contained therein, basing the same on his own investigation and knowledge.” The only evidence tending to show the power and authority of the agent was contained in the certificate of agency; and that empowered him to “solicit applications for insurance, * * * and forward the same, together with the entire consideration therefor, whether in notes or money, to the secretary of the company.”

1. Counsel for appellant insist that the application is a part of the contract, and that, as it is in writing, any evidence which tended to contradict or vary it in any material respect was inadmissible; and it is further contended that, as the statements in the application are false, the plaintiff cannot recover. On the other hand, counsel for the appellee contend that the plaintiff is not bound by false statements in the application, for the reason that he never made them; but that, as to the defendant, they must be regarded as true, because they were written and made by its own agent, when acting within the apparent scope of the authority with which he was vested.

It will be conceded that the agent was a soliciting agent only, and that he had no power to bind the defendant by any contract he might make. But he made no contract. All that he did was to solicit insurance, and fill up a blank application furnished him by the company. Where an insurance company appoints an agent to solicit insurance, and furnishes him with blank applications, it must be assumed that he is vested with the power to fill up the application in accordance with information furnished him by the applicant; and such is the usual practice. For this purpose he is the agent of the company, and if instead of obtaining the requisite...