Fowler v. Preferred Acc. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 March 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 398,100 Ga. 330
• Parties: FOWLER v. PREFERRED ACC. INS. CO.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

28 S.E. 398

100 Ga. 330

FOWLER v. PREFERRED ACC. INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 3, 1897

Syllabus by the Court.

1. If in any event, a valid contract of accident insurance can in this state be made in parol, such a contract does not result from oral conversations and negotiations between an applicant for insurance and an agent of an insurance company, whose conclusions and stipulations in the premises are finally reduced to writing, and embraced in two instruments,--the one an application for a policy of insurance, signed by the applicant; and the other a receipt, signed by the agent, for a specified amount, as "the first quarterly premium of" the policy to be issued.

2. Where, from the terms of such application, it is apparent that the agent in question has no authority to write for the company any binding contract of insurance; that no statements made by him to the applicant are to bind the company; that the application itself shall not be binding on the company until accepted by its secretary; and "that the policy shall not be in force until actually issued from" the company's office,--a mere verbal assurance by the agent to the applicant that he is insured from the date of the application and the giving of the receipt do not constitute a contract of insurance upon which an action can be maintained.

3. A policy of insurance bearing a given date, and purporting to insure for the future only, cannot be made the basis of an action to recover for a loss occurring upon a prior date; and if, for any reason, such policy is subject to reformation as to date, it can be reformed only in a court having the power to grant affirmative equitable relief in such matters.

Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by A. R. Fowler against Preferred Accident Insurance Company on a contract of insurance. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Goodwin & Westmoreland, for plaintiff in error.

Payne & Tye, for defendant in error.

FISH J.

Fowler brought suit, in the city court of Atlanta, against the Preferred Accident Insurance Company of New York, on a contract for accident insurance. After evidence for the plaintiff had been submitted, the court granted a nonsuit. Plaintiff excepted, alleging that the court erred, because under the law and evidence, he was entitled to recover on two grounds: (1) On an oral contract made with defendant's agents for immediate insurance; and (2) on a written policy which he alleged had been fraudulently dated so as to postdate the accident. The view that we take of this case renders it unnecessary to decide whether or not a valid contract of accident insurance can, in this state, be made in parol; for it is apparent from the evidence in the record that no such parol contract was ever consummated, as claimed by the plaintiff in error. All the oral conversations and negotiations between the plaintiff and the defendant's agents in reference to accident insurance which the plaintiff desired to procure in the defendant company resulted in the plaintiff filling out and signing an application for a policy for such insurance in the defendant company, and the agents of the defendant giving the plaintiff a receipt for a certain sum on the first quarterly premium of the policy to be issued by the defendant, and were therefore merged in the said written instruments, by virtue of the plain and familiar rule that all oral negotiations, conversations, and agreements between parties to a written contract which either precede or accompany the execution of the instrument are to be regarded as merged in or extinguished by it, and the writing is to be treated as the exclusive agreement by which the contracting parties are bound. Therefore whatever conclusions were reached or...