Kantoff v. Sedlak Motor Sales

• Court: Appellate Court of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: KILEY; LEWE, P. J., and FEINBERG
• Citation: Kantoff v. Sedlak Motor Sales, 130 N.E.2d 289, 8 Ill.App.2d 8 (Ill. App. 1955)
• Decision Date: 02 November 1955
• Docket Number: Gen. No. 46613
• Parties: Fred KANTOFF, Appellee, v. SEDLAK MOTOR SALES, Inc., and Milton R. Sedlak, Appellants.

Page 289

130 N.E.2d 289

8 Ill.App.2d 8

Fred KANTOFF, Appellee, v. SEDLAK MOTOR SALES, Inc., and Milton R. Sedlak, Appellants.

Gen. No. 46613.

Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

Nov. 2, 1955.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 19, 1955.

Herbert M. Wetzel, Arthur Frankel, Chicago, for appellants.

Louis W. Reinecker, Chicago, C. E. McElhaney, Jr., Chicago, of counsel, for appellee.

KILEY, Justice.

This is an action to recover the sum of $1,529 which plaintiff alleges he advanced, on behalf of defendants, for the first year's premium on a $50,000 life insurance policy. The court, without a jury, found for plaintiff and entered judgment for $1,000. Defendants have appealed and plaintiff has assigned cross error with respect to the amount of the judgment.

Plaintiff alleged that he delivered the policy, that he demanded payment of the premium by defendants, that he paid the premium February 27, 1951 and that the policy was not returned by defendants and that they refused to reimburse him though they had the benefit of the policy. Defendants admitted delivery of the policy, but denied their acceptance of it or plaintiff's demand for the premium, and they admitted the policy was not returned and state that its return was not requested. They alleged no knowledge of payment of plaintiff and that plaintiff was the insurer's agent, not the defendants'.

We think that the court was justified in finding that in August 1950 Sedlak applied to plaintiff, a licensed broker, for a $20,000 individual policy; that plaintiff placed this application with the Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company of Newark, New Jersey; that Sedlak passed the required physical examination and the policy was issued; that Sedlak returned this policy within a reasonable time as unsatisfactory; that then Sedlak, with the defendant corporation which co-operated by showing their insurable interest in Sedlak, applied through plaintiff in January 1952 for a $50,000 corporate form policy; that this policy was issued on the 24th of the month upon the life of Sedlak with the corporation as beneficiary; that the policy was delivered by plaintiff to, and accepted by, Sedlak; that by its terms the policy required payment of an annual premium of $1,529 on delivery; that several times during the grace period for the first premium plaintiff attempted to induce Sedlak to pay the premium; that upon Sedlak's failure to do so plaintiff paid the premium, without Sedlak's authority; that Sedlak retained the policy for more than a year with knowledge that plaintiff had paid the premium; and that he refused to reimburse plaintiff.

The questions before us are whether plaintiff was agent for defendants; and whether as principals defendants became liable to plaintiff for reimbursement of the amount which he paid for the first annual premium. We need not determine whether plaintiff was a general or special agent for the insurance company; he was a licensed broker free to place defendants' application with any company he chose.

Defendants urge that plaintiff could not be their agent since he was also the agent for the insurance company, and this they claim violated the rule of law that an agent's duty of loyalty prevents him from acting for adverse parties without the consent of both. We think, however, that this rule is not applicable because, as the court properly found, defendants, with knowledge of plaintiff's agency with the insurance company, authorized him to represent...