John Roach, Jr., Inc. v. Pingpank

• Decision Date: 06 March 1956
• Docket Number: No. A--776,A--776
• Parties: JOHN ROACH, Jr., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William A. PINGPANK, trading as W. A. Pingpank, Defendant-Appellant. . Appellate Division
• Court: New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Page 336

39 N.J.Super. 336

121 A.2d 32

JOHN ROACH, Jr., Inc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. William A. PINGPANK, trading as W. A. Pingpank, Defendant-Appellant.

No. A--776.

Superior Court of New Jersey.

Appellate Division.

Argued Feb. 20, 1956.

Decided March 6, 1956.

Charles M. Egan, Jr., Morristown, argued the cause for appellant.

Samuel C. Meyerson, Dover, argued the cause for respondent.

Before Judges CLAPP, JAYNE and FRANCIS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by

FRANCIS, J.A.D.

Plaintiff, John Roach, Jr., Inc., an insurance agent, recovered a judgment in the county district court against defendant Pingpank, a broker. It represented an additional unpaid premium due on a workmen's compensation insurance policy negotiated by Pingpank as broker on behalf of the insured, one Marjorie Ackland, trading as River Tavern. Pingpank appeals, contending that in having the policy written through Roach he was simply acting as agent for a fully disclosed principal, Marjorie Ackland, and consequently assumed no personal liability for the premium.

The record discloses that Roach conducts a general insurance agency in Dover, New Jersey. Defendant, who lives in Mountain Lakes, New Jersey, is a licensed broker and writes insurance in Morris County. According to the trial court's statement, defendant communicated with John Roach, Jr., plaintiff's president, and inquired as to whether the insurance company for which Roach was agent would write policies 'for him.' If so, Pingpank would furnish the names and addresses of his clients, the persons to be insured. Plaintiff agreed to do so.

Thereafter over a period of time, apparently some years, the parties did business together. The practice followed was for defendant to provide the necessary information as to the type of coverage required and the names and addresses of the persons to be insured. Plaintiff would issue the policies or, as agent for the insurance carrier, cause them to be written, and deliver them to defendant. Roach had no contact of any kind with Pingpank's clients. The charges for premiums were billed to defendant and sent to him with the policies. In turn, he would deliver the policies, collect the moneys due and deposit them in his own bank account. Then, after deducting his broker's commission, he would send his personal check for the balance of the premium.

Except for the words 'for him' emphasized in the context above, there was no proof of any express agreement by defendant that he was to incur a personal obligation for the payment of premiums for his clients, or that credit therefor was to be extended to him. The trial court found that the relation of debtor and creditor existed between them and so imposed liability on Pingpank.

Ordinarily an insurance broker is one who acts as a middleman between the insured and insurer. He has no special employment from the company but solicits business from the public generally and when obtained, offers it on behalf of his client, either directly to the carrier or to one of its agents. N.J.S.A. 17:22--6.2; 16 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice (1944), § 8727; 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, § 86 (1940).

When coverage is supplied, the insured is primarily liable to the insurer for the premium. 3 Couch, Cyclopedia of Insurance Law (1929), § 607, at p. 1966. And normally a broker procuring a policy in behalf of a fully disclosed principal assumes no responsibility therefor. McCauley v. Ridgewood Trust Co., 81 N.J.L. 86, 88, 79 A. 327 (Sup.Ct.1911); Restatement, Agency, § 320, comment (a) (1933); 3 C.J.S., Agency, § 215 a (1936); 2 Am.Jur., Agency, § 315 (1936). However, he may pledge his own credit for payment by an express undertaking (Drill Construction Co. v. Rosenthal, 151 A. 399, 8 N.J.Misc. 666 (Sup.Ct.1930); Sadler v. Young, 78 N.J.L. 594, 75 A. 890 (E. & A.1910); 3 C.J.S., Agency, § 215 b, c, p. 122 (1936); Restatement, supra, § 146), or by a course of dealings which demonstrates an intention to do so, Munro v. Bowers, 293 Mass. 514, 200 N.E. 393 (Sup.Jud.Ct.1936); 3 Couch, op. cit., supra, § 607, at 1967.

The presumption is that an agent acting in the course of a disclosed agency procures the extension of credit to his principal exclusively, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the person asserting it. Weimer v. Bockel, 128 Pa.Super. 385, 194 A. 318, 321 (Super.Ct.1937). In that case the Pennsylvania Superior Court also said:

"This initial burden is satisfied if the plaintiff proves that the defendant has made a promise, the form of which does not indicate that it was given as agent. The defendant then has the burden of going forward if he wishes to show that his promise was made only as an agent and that this should have been so understood."

It may be conceded in the present situation that plaintiff's testimony was susceptible of the inference that credit was extended to the defendant. In defense, Pingpank denied that he had...