Frank Gardner Hardware & Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.

Citation148 So.2d 190,245 Miss. 320,4 A.L.R.3d 1190
Decision Date07 January 1963
Docket NumberNo. 42507,42507
Parties, 4 A.L.R.3d 1190 FRANK GARDNER HARDWARE AND SUPPLY COMPANY v. ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Mississippi

Melvin, Melvin & Melvin, Laurel, for appellant.

M. M. Roberts, Hattiesburg, Beard, Pack, Ratcliff & Dillard, Laurel, for appellee.

ETHRIDGE, Justice.

This is a suit by Frank Gardner Hardware and Supply Company (called Gardner) on a blanket employees' fidelity bond written by St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (called St. Paul). After presentation of evidence by both sides, the Circuit Court of Jones County, Second District, gave a peremptory instruction for the defendant, St. Paul. The judgment was based on an exception or exclusion in the policy of employees known by insured to have committed any fraudulent or dishonest act in the service of insured, and plaintiff's failure to show notice to insurer of the employees' prior dishonest acts, and its waiver or estoppel.

The Gardner company, located in Laurel, is engaged in selling wholesale hardware, building materials and plumbing supplies. It has approximately twenty employees. In 1956 Ray Bulger, working for Gardner as a commission salesman, embezzled from the company $2,149.44. At that time Gardner had an employees' fidelity bond written by American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company, not St. Paul. Officers of Gardner learned of this defalcation by Bulger. He was suspended from his job, but subsequently was reinstated when he executed to Gardner a promissory note in that amount, dated February 25, 1956, co-signed by three other people. Witnesses for Gardner said Bulger 'reimbursed us'. Apparently Bulger's note to Gardner as payee was endorsed by Gardner and sold at a discount to a bank. At Bulger's direction, the secretary-treasurer of Gardner deducted from his commissions each month $100 to apply on the note, and paid that sum to the bank. These payments were made as late as November 1957, several months after St. Paul wrote the fidelity bond here in issue.

The blanket employees' fidelity bond written by St. Paul took effect on July 1, 1957. At that time and for more than a year before the employees and officers of Gardner were fully aware of Bulger's fraudulent and dishonest acts, the embezzlements from Gardner which occurred in 1956.

Under the insuring agreement, St. Paul agreed to indemnify Gardner for all loss which the insured discovered before the expiration of three years from the effective date of the policy, which the insured should sustain through 'any dishonest or fraudulent acts committed anywhere, alone or in collusion with others, by any employee or employees * * *, while this insuring agreement is in force as to the employee or employees causing such loss * * *.' Following the phrase 'employee or employees' was a lengthy parenthetical clause describing certain exclusions in the classification of employees. It provided that 'employee or employees * * * shall not mean any partner of the insured, or any brokers, factors, commission merchants, consignees, contractors or other agents or representatives of the same general character, nor any person who is known by the Insured to have committed any fraudulent or dishonest act in any position in the service of the Insured or otherwise, * * *.' (emphasis added)

In short, the insuring agreement excluded from its coverage any person known by insured to have committed any fraudulent or dishonest act. The undisputed evidence showed that Bulger fell within this exception: He was a person known by the insured, Gardner, to have committed fraudulent and dishonest acts while working for insured in 1956. Accordingly, Bulger was not among the employees covered by the blanket policy. He was excepted from its coverage. 9 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice (1943), Secs. 5661-5663; Holley Coal Co. v. Globe Indemnity Co., 186 F.2d 291 (C.A. 4th, 1950); McGee v. Maryland Casualty Co., 240 Miss. 447, 452, 127 So.2d 656 (1961); see also Continental Life Insurance Co. v. Turnbough, 151 Miss. 43, 117 So. 334 (1928); Ferguson v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 170 Miss. 504, 155 So. 168 (1934); 29A Am.Jur., Insurance, Sec. 1851; Anno., 68 A.L.R.2d 8, 145, 204 (1959); 46 C.J.S. Insurance Sec. 1317(2)(b), pp. 409-412. Bulger, therefore, was an excepted employee expressly excluded from the bond's coverage.

Appellant contends that the quoted exception clause in the insuring agreement applies only to employees who commit fraudulent or dishonest acts while it is in force, but we do not agree. Under the contract St. Paul agreed to indemnify insured from loss through dishonest acts of employees. Following that statement is a seventeen line, parenthetical clause describing employees, and excepting or excluding from coverage certain persons, including persons known by insured to have committed fraudulent or dishonest acts. Following this parenthetical statement clause is a clause beginning, 'while this insuring agreement is in force as to the employee * * * causing such loss * * *.' This latter clause describes the period during which insured's employees are covered. It does not modify the parenthetical, exception provision, which excludes persons known by insured to have committed dishonest acts.

Gardner argues that St. Paul is estopped to rely upon the exception of Bulger from the bond, and St. Paul, through its agents, waived it. We do not think so, for two reasons.

First, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be used to extend the coverage of an insurance policy or create a primary liability, but may only affect rights reserved in it. An insurance contract, under the guise of waiver, cannot be reformed to create a liability for a condition or employee excluded by the specific terms of the policy. 16 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice (1943), Sec. 9090; Maryland Casualty Company v. Adams, 159 Miss. 88, 131 So. 544 (1931); Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Lockard, 239 Miss. 644, 124 So.2d 849; Employers Fire Insurance Co. v. Speed, 242 Miss. 341, 133 So.2d 627 (1961). The qualifications on this doctrine are not applicable here. See Travelers Fire Insurance Co. v. Bank of New Albany, 146 So.2d 351 (Miss. 1962). McGee v. Maryland Casualty Co., supra, 240 Miss. at 452, 127 So.2d at 658 held that acts of an employee, in the same category as Bulger, were 'expressly excluded by the terms of the (fidelity) bond.' Waiver and estoppel, therefore, are not applicable in the instant case.

Second, even if waiver and estoppel were available, the evidence does not pose jury issues on these propositions. Bulger's defalcations from Gardner in 1956 occurred while another company's fidelity bond was in effect. Gardner's vice-president and bookkeeper, who negotiated with St. Paul's agents for the new policy, did not advise them of Bulger's previous dishonest acts. The new policy was a blanket employees' fidelity contract. Gardner's representatives simply handed to St. Paul's agents the old policies, including the former fidelity bond, which had attached to it a letter from the prior insurer that the word "employee' as defined in the captioned policy will include Ray Bulger regardless of Sections 5 and 11 of the policy.' This was not such notice to St. Paul's agents as to constitute a waiver, nor are there any circumstances indicating an estoppel. Gardner's vice-president admitted that, when St. Paul's agents asked him whether Gardner had had any 'loss or defaulting' in the past three years, he told them it had not. Hence even if estoppel and waiver were available to appellant, Gardner's evidence failed to make a jury issue on those two points.

Appellant purchased the new policy from St. Paul after it knew Bulger had embezzled from it over $2,000, did not tell St. Paul about these defalcations, and now seeks under the new policy to recover $5,569.77 for later embezzlements by...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Suddith v. University of Southern Miss.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Mississippi
    • 31 Julio 2007
    ...§ 80 (1964)." Old Equity Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 217 So.2d 648, 652 (Miss.1969) (citing Frank Gardner Hardware & Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 245 Miss. 320, 148 So.2d 190 (Miss.1963)). ¶ 53. Upon first impression, it might appear that Dr. Lucas's implicit representation th......
  • Looney v. Allstate Insurance Company
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)
    • 4 Abril 1968
    ...Employers Fire Ins. Co. v. Speed, 242 Miss. 341, 133 So.2d 627, 629 (1961); Frank Gardner Hardware & Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 245 Miss. 320, 148 So.2d 190, 193, 4 A.L.R.3d 1190 (1963); Morris v. American Fid. Fire Ins. Co., 253 Miss. 297, 173 So.2d 618, 623 (1965); and......
  • Canal Ins. Co. v. Bush, 42635
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 3 Junio 1963
    ...alleged agent, resting in parol. We have three recent cases holding directly to the contrary. In Frank Gardner Hardware & Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Miss., 148 So.2d 190, the Court said: 'First, the doctrines of waiver and estoppel cannot be used to extend the coverage o......
  • American National Property and Casualty Company v. Estate of Farese
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. Southern District of Mississippi
    • 30 Marzo 2021
    ...to create a primary liability or to increase the coverage of insurance contracts.")); Frank Gardner Hardware & Supply Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 245 Miss. 320, 148 So. 2d 190, 193 (1963) ("the doctrines of waiver and estoppel may not be used to reform an insurance contract ‘to ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT