Lett v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 2 Div. 864 |
| Citation | 105 So. 553,213 Ala. 488 |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
| Parties | LETT v. LIVERPOOL & LONDON & GLOBE INS. CO. |
Rehearing Withdrawn Oct. 8, 1925
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; S.F. Hobbs, Judge.
Action by W.L. Lett against the Liverpool & London & Globe Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Transferred from Court of Appeals under section 7326, Code of 1923. Affirmed.
M.E Frolich, of Selma, for appellant.
Steiner Crum & Weil, of Montgomery, and Pettus, Fuller & Lapsley, of Selma, for appellee.
The special pleas of defendant set up a good defense, and the demurrers thereto were properly overruled.
There is no question here as to a forfeiture of the policy. The provision relied upon by defendant (and which appears in the policy) automatically worked a suspension of the policy during any period of default in the payment of a premium note, unless the company, by some duly authorized agent extended the period of payment.
There was no evidence that Helmer, defendant's local agent at Selma, who sold plaintiff his policy, had any authority to waive the payment of the premium due on March 1, 1922, and keep the policy in force during plaintiff's default. A soliciting agent may waive a condition at the time the policy is delivered (AEtna Fire Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 161 Ala. 600, 50 So. 73, 135 Am.St.Rep. 160, but he cannot waive the breach of a condition afterwards. Prine v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 171 Ala. 343, 54 So. 547; So. States Fire Ins. Co. v. Kronenberg, 199 Ala. 164, 74 So. 63.
Moreover, nothing that was said by the agent, Helmer, can possibly be construed as a waiver of the default admitted by plaintiff, for what he said was merely an invitation to plaintiff to come to his office and arrange with him to pay the premium and carry on the policy. This was in no sense a promise or assurance that the policy was in force, or would be kept in force, pending the execution of such an arrangement.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aetna Ins. Co. v. Singleton
... ... Am. Ins. Co., 5 N.W. 543; Henning ... v. Am. Ins. Co., 194 P. 647; Lett v. Liverpool, ... etc., Co., 105 So. 553; Hill v. Phil. Life, 35 ... 418; AEtna Ins. Co. v. Lester, 154 So. 709, ... 170 Miss. 260; London Guar. & Acc. Co. v. Miss. Central ... R. R. Co., 52 So. 787, 97 Miss ... ...
-
Scott v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.
...York Life Insurance Co., 899 F.2d 1131, 1135 (11th Cir.1990). 2 Any argument that the rule announced in Lett v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 213 Ala. 488, 105 So. 553 (1925) applies in this case must be rejected. In Lett, the court held that requests for premium payments after a pol......
-
American Insurance Co. v. Austin
... ... 570] ... In ... American Ins. Co. v. Hornbarger, 85 Ark ... 337, 108 S.W. 213, Mr ... Co. v. Jones, 215 Ala. 107, 110 So. 30, citing ... Lett v. Liverpool & London & Globe Co., 213 ... Ala. 488, 105 ... ...
-
Southern Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Avery
... ... the same according to the tenure of such receipts. Lett ... v. Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co., 213 Ala. 488, ... 105 So ... ...