Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Powell
Citation | 160 F.2d 89 |
Decision Date | 03 March 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 171,Docket 20474.,171 |
Parties | GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INS. CO. v. POWELL et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, of New Haven, Conn. (Morris Tyler and J. Stephen Knight, both of New Haven, Conn., of counsel), for appellant.
John F. McGowan, of Bridgeport, Conn., for August A. and Albert J. Powell, appellees.
Adrian W. Maher, of Bridgeport, Conn., for Jean Sturrock, appellee.
Richard Weldon, of Bridgeport, Conn., for Albert Dyson and Ivy Lefkowitz, appellees.
Before SWAN, CHASE, and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
This is an action by an insurance company, brought in the federal court on the ground of diverse citizenship, for a judgment declaring void a renewal policy of automobile liability insurance issued to Albert J. Powell. The complaint alleged as grounds for the requested annulment fraudulent misrepresentations and concealment of material facts by August A. Powell, a brother of the insured, who acted as his agent in obtaining the renewal policy. The other defendants were persons claiming to have sustained personal injury or property damage as the result of an accident in which the insured's car was involved. The district court held the renewal policy valid. From the ensuing judgment of dismissal the plaintiff has appealed.
The facts are substantially undisputed. The original policy was issued to Albert J. Powell, a lieutenant in the United States Army, whose home was in Bridgeport, Conn., where he lived with his mother and his brother August. In December 1944 Lt. Powell was ordered overseas. He left his car in Bridgeport, giving his brother full permission to use it and instructing him to renew the insurance policy which was to expire on January 27, 1945. In due time August Powell mailed to the insurance company a renewal application signed "Lt. Albert J. Powell," and accompanied by a letter similarly signed. The letter was required in explanation of an affirmative answer to one of the questions in the renewal application, and read as follows:
On February 5, 1945, the insurance company issued its renewal policy and forwarded it to Lt. Powell with a letter which contained the following paragraph:
Having received no reply to this letter, the company wrote again on February 27th saying:
August Powell then wrote the company in Lt. Powell's name:
On May 13, 1945, shortly after midnight, August Powell was involved in an automobile accident while driving his brother's car. On the previous afternoon he took the car to go to work and, after finishing work at 11 P.M., he went with friends on a "party"; he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the accident. To a charge of driving in this condition he pleaded guilty.
The district court found that August acted in good faith in signing his brother's name, and held that his failure to disclose that he was acting as Albert's agent and that Albert had gone overseas was neither a misrepresentation nor a concealment of any material fact. We agree. Century Indemnity Co. v. Shergold, 2 Cir., 135 F.2d 568.
We cannot agree, however, with the holding that August's failure to disclose that he had sole custody of the car, with permission to use it when and as he pleased, was not a material concealment. The company's letter of February 5th addressed to Albert inquired expressly as to "the purposes for which" your brother August "will use your automobile and how often he will have occasion to operate the automobile." How important the company considered such information clearly appeared from the second letter which stated that coverage would be restricted to operation of the car by the named insured unless the requested information was promptly furnished. Since the policy covered operation of the car by persons...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Houston Cas. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's London
...if broker had been truthful). The Underwriters, therefore, are entitled to avoid the reinsurance policy. See Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Powell, 160 F.2d 89, 92 (2d Cir.1947) (holding that policy could be avoided because of agent's misrepresentation); Thebes Shipping, 599 F.Supp. at 42......
-
Miller v. Plains Ins. Co.
...collisions and the wife had been convicted of 'speeding' and suffered revocation of her driver's license; and Government Employees Insurance Co. v. Powell, 2 Cir., 160 F.2d 89, where insured, via letter written by his agent, represented his brother (previously arrested for 'driving under th......
-
Baggett Transportation Company v. United States
...policy. See Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 1928, 277 U.S. 311, 316-317, 48 S. Ct. 512, 72 L.Ed. 895; Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Powell, 2 Cir., 1947, 160 F.2d 89; Cohen, Friedlander & Martin Co. v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 63. A similar rule ha......
-
Northwestern Nat. Cas. Co. v. Bettinger, Civ. No. 2276.
...was not informed that Lawrence would be the sole driver did not constitute any misrepresentation. As stated in Government Employees Ins. Co. v. Powell, supra, 160 F.2d 89, mere failure to disclose is neither a misrepresentation nor a concealment of a material Therefore, considering all of t......