Edwards v. Sun Ins. Co.

• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: Goode
• Citation: Edwards v. Sun Ins. Co., 73 S.W. 886, 101 Mo. App. 45 (Mo. App. 1903)
• Decision Date: 31 March 1903
• Parties: EDWARDS v. SUN INS. CO.

73 S.W. 886

101 Mo. App. 45

EDWARDS v. SUN INS. CO.

Court of Appeals at St. Louis, Missouri.

March 31, 1903.

INSURANCE — AGENTS — AUTHORITY — CANCELLATION OF POLICY—NOTICE TO PLEDGEE —CONSENT TO CANCELLATION—NOTICE TO TRUSTEE—ACTIONS — INSTRUCTIONS — QUESTION FOR JURY.

1. Where a firm of insurance agents issued a policy on a corporation's property, which by its terms was to take effect April 18th, and the policy was deposited with a bank as collateral security for a loan, and thereafter, on April 24th, one of the agents went to the bank and obtained the policy for cancellation on his agreement that the insurance should be in force until other insurance was written in place of it, such agreement did not constitute an invalid verbal agreement to insure, but was an agreement that the policy should not be canceled until other insurance had been substituted.

2. An agreement by an insurance agent who had issued a policy, on receiving the same from a pledgee for cancellation, that the insurance should not be canceled until another policy of equal value had been substituted, was within the scope of the agent's authority.

3. Where insurance agents had written a policy on the property of a corporation in a company which they represented, which thereafter directed a cancellation of the policy, such agents represented the insurers only, and notice of cancellation to them was not notice to the insured.

4. Where insurance agents who had been directed by the insurer to cancel a policy applied to insured's bookkeeper therefor, who went with one of such agents to a bank where the policy had been deposited, from which they obtained the same, and the agent had full knowledge of all insured's matters pertaining to its insurance, the agents were not misled or justified in believing that the bank had authority to surrender the policy or receive notice of its cancellation without notice to the insured.

5. Where a policy of insurance was pledged as additional collateral security in a deed of trust, notice of cancellation of the policy to the trustee was unnecessary.

6. Where, in an action on a policy which had been pledged to a trustee, there was no issue that an alleged cancellation was void for lack of notice to him, the refusal of an instruction that such notice was not required was not error.

7. Where notice of cancellation of an insurance policy was given to assured's bookkeeper, and it was shown that such bookkeeper kept a record of the insurance policies carried on the corporation's property, whether he had authority to receive notice of such cancellation, which was binding on the company, was for the jury.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; H. D. Wood, Judge.

Action by Albert N. Edwards against the Sun Insurance Company. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Fyke Bros. and Snider & Richardson, for appellant. John H. Overall, H. W. Bond, and W. G. Schofield, for respondent.

Statement of Facts and Opinion.

GOODE, J.

In some respects this action resembles the case by the same plaintiff against the Home Insurance Company (heretofore decided by this court) 73 S. W. 881, but in vital points is materially different. The Sun Insurance Company on April 12, 1901, issued a policy of insurance for $2,500 on the buildings of the American Baseball & Athletic Exhibition Company of St. Louis, to be in force from April 17, 1901, to April 17, 1902. Roeslein & Robyn, who are insurance agents and brokers in the city of St. Louis, and the local agents of the Sun Insurance Company in said city, issued the policy in question. The buildings covered by it were damaged by fire May 4, 1901, and this action was instituted to recover the proceeds of the policy. Two special defenses were pleaded— the first that when the policy was delivered it was agreed between Roeslein & Robyn, the agents of the insurance company, and M. S. Robison, the vice president of the baseball company, that before the policy should take effect said Roeslein & Robyn would communicate with the insurance company to ascertain whether it would carry the risk, and if it declined to do so the baseball company should surrender the policy; that when the insurance company was informed about the matter it notified its said agents that it could not carry the risk, and on April 17th, in the forenoon, before the policy took effect, said agents informed the insured of the decision of the company, and the policy was afterwards, pursuant to said agreement, surrendered to the company, and therefore never took effect. The other defense rests on a condition of the policy providing for cancellation at any time by the company on five days' notice to the insured, and the surrender of the unearned portion of the...