Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Russell

• Decision Date: 02 July 1932
• Citation: 51 S.W.2d 491
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court
• Parties: LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE v. RUSSELL.

51 S.W.2d 491

LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE v. RUSSELL.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

July 2, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Davidson County; A. G. Rutherford, Judge.

Suit by Sarah Russell against the Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

Reversed, and suit dismissed.

M. P. Estes, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

Jeff McCarn, of Nashville, for defendant in error.

McKINNEY, J.

Mrs. Russell sued the insurance company for damages. After stating that she was a policyholder in said company and that its agent called at her home on August 8, 1931, to collect the premium due, as was his custom, the declaration alleges the following:

"Plaintiff is a woman of rather timid nature and easily frightened and excited, and instead of coming to the door and making himself known and making his business known, the defendant's said agent or collector walked to plaintiff's door, knocked on the door, causing plaintiff to come to the door, which was open, but there was a screen door standing closed, and defendant's said agent had his hat pulled down so that his face could not be seen by plaintiff and he stood in front of her and near her in that condition with a pistol presented at plaintiff for the purpose of frightening her and which did frighten her so that she was overcome to such an extent that she lost control of herself, became helpless, had to be put to bed and attended by a physician. She was confined to her bed for more than a month, was attended by a physician, and was caused to suffer loss of sleep and caused to become extremely nervous, from all of which plaintiff suffered and was damaged in the sum of $10,000.00, for which she sues and demands a jury to try the cause."

From the foregoing it may be inferred that the agent never spoke a word, did not demand the premium due, and did or said nothing to indicate that he was there as the representative of the insurance company. As to whether the agent was playing a prank, attempting to commit robbery or some other crime, or was mentally unbalanced, the declaration is silent. Clearly his conduct was not authorized or condoned by the company, and his act was not such as was contemplated by his employment, or as might reasonably have been anticipated by his employer in connection with his duties.

The case was tried upon the following stipulation, to wit:

"In this cause it is agreed that the facts are as stated in the declaration and if the facts so stated make out a case of liability against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff the Court is authorized to render a judgment against the defendant in favor of the plaintiff for the sum of One Thousand ($1,0...