Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Guthrie

• Decision Date: 07 October 1930
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 833.
• Citation: 131 So. 246,24 Ala.App. 104
• Parties: HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. v. GUTHRIE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

131 So. 246

24 Ala.App. 104

HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO. v. GUTHRIE.

6 Div. 833.

Court of Appeals of Alabama

October 7, 1930

Rehearing Denied Nov. 11, 1930.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R. L. Blanton, Judge.

Action on a promissory note by the Hartford Fire Insurance Company against R. F. Guthrie. From a judgment for defendant plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Representations of agent taking application for insurance and receiving cash premium are binding upon insurer. Code 1923, § 9534.

Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Guthrie, 131 So. 248.

Defendant's pleas G and H are as follows:

"G. That the demand sued upon in this case was given as installments on two insurance policies to settle the premiums therefor; that to-wit in August, 1927, when said policies were in full force and effect, and when all premiums due thereon had been fully paid, the plaintiff acting through its authorized agent wrongfully suspended the operation of said policies and the defendant since said time has had no protection under said policies. Defendant says that the plaintiff breached its said contract in suspending the operation of said policies, and that as a proximate result of said wrongful suspension of said policies constituting a wrongful breach of its contract, this defendant was damaged in the sum of $107.79, which said damage was the premiums on said policies now sought to be enforced by the plaintiff while this defendant has no protection thereunder, and he hereby offers to set said damages off against the demand sued upon in this case.

"H. For further plea this defendant says that the note sued upon was secured by fraud and false representations of the authorized agent of the plaintiff while he was acting within the line of his duty and within the scope of his authority as such agent, which said false and fraudulent representations consisted in this; that the defendant had agreed to take two certain insurance policies one fire and one tornado covering certain property owned by the defendant; that he was then and there to pay one installment and was to make a note for four other installments which would carry the policies for the full five years agreed to be taken for. The defendant says that the said agent of the plaintiff as aforesaid, while acting as aforesaid, falsely and fraudulently represented to this defendant that the amount due on each installment of said policies was $43.13, when said agent at the time knew that this was false and untrue and was made to deceive this defendant and did deceive this defendant. The said agent at the said time further falsely and fraudulently represented to this defendant that the fine print in said note reading as follows: 'And it is hereby agreed that in case of any one of the installments herein named shall not be paid at maturity, or if any single payment, promissory note (acknowledged as cash otherwise) given for the whole or any portion of the premium for said policy shall not be paid promptly when due this company shall not be liable for loss during such default, and said policy shall lapse until said payment is made to this company at their Southern Farm Department at Atlanta, Ga., and the whole amount of installments or notes remaining unpaid may be declared earned, due and payable and may be collected by law,' was in truth and in fact a waiver of his claim of exemptions under the law; that at said time said agent knew what said clause was, and that he made said false representations to this defendant to deceive him into signing said note without reading the same, and that said agent at said time further represented to this defendant which representation was false and fraudulently made and with the intent and purpose of deceiving this defendant and defrauding him out of his money and did deceive and defraud him, that if the defendant would sign the note that he would thereafter receive two insurance policies which would insure his property for the full period of five years, and that there would be no clause in said policy whereby said company could cancel said policy during said period of five years. Defendant alleges that all of said representations were false;

...