Germania Fire Ins. Co. of New York v. Hick

• Decision Date: 16 June 1888
• Citation: 125 Ill. 361,17 N.E. 792
• Parties: GERMANIA FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK v. HICK.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

125 Ill. 361

17 N.E. 792

GERMANIA FIRE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

v.HICK.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1888.

Appeal from appellate court, Fourth district.

Barnum, Rubens & Ames

, for appellant.

Carl Roedel, for appellee.

SCOTT, J.

This suit was brought in the circuit court of Gallatin county, by Sophia L. Hick, for the use of Thomas S. Ridgeway, against the Germania Fire Insurance Company. The declaration is in assumpsit on an insurance policy. The risk covered by the policy is a mill, with the plant connected therewith, situated on leased land. One of the conditions contained in the policy upon which the insurance contract would be void, ‘unless specially agreed to in writing in or upon the policy,’ is, ‘the situation of an insured building on leased ground.’ The only defense insisted upon is that the fact the mill was situated on ‘leased ground’ was not agreed to in writing in or on the policy covering the risk in this suit. There is no controversy made as to the fact that the mill was situated on ‘leased ground,’ nor is it pretended it was agreed to in writing on the policy or otherwise that such was the fact. Admitting these facts, as was done, plaintiff contended the agent of defendant who made the application for insurance knew the true title and situation of the property at the time he filled up the application, and it was as to such alleged knowledge of the agent issue was formed and the trial was had in the circuit court. No other point in the case seems to have been contested. The record contains very clear and satisfactory evidence that the agent did know, when he made the survey, and ‘answered the questions from his own knowledge,’ upon which the policy was written, that the mill property stood on ‘leased ground.’ He states so distinctly. But if it were a controverted question of fact, the finding of that fact by the appellate court, as did the trial court, would be conclusive upon this court. Assuming, then, as must be done, that the agent of defendant, when he made what he called a ‘mill survey,’ and answered the questions of his own knowledge, without any inquiry of the assured or the party for whose benefit it was taken, knew the mill was situated on ‘leased ground,’ the law is for plaintiff, and defendant will be estopped to say the policy was void for that reason. An insurance company that knowingly takes a premium for a policy under conditions that would render it invalid will not be permitted to say it is not a binding contract for that reason. In all such cases the company will be regarded as having the same knowledge of the condition and situation of the property as possessed by the agent transacting the business for it. This view of the law has frequently...