Maryland Cas. Co. v. Foster, 7770

• Court: Supreme Court of New Mexico
• Citation: 1966 NMSC 98,414 P.2d 672,76 N.M. 310
• Docket Number: No. 7770,7770
• Parties: MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. J. M. FOSTER, d/b/a Foster Insurance Agency, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.
• Decision Date: 23 May 1966

Page 672

414 P.2d 672 76 N.M. 310 MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
J. M. FOSTER, d/b/a Foster Insurance Agency, Third-Party
Defendant-Appellant. No. 7770. Supreme Court of New Mexico. May 23, 1966.

[76 NM 310] T. K. Campbell, Las Cruces, James C. Compton, Portales, for appellant.

Sanders & Bruin, Roswell, for appellee.

MOISE, Justice.

The facts of the case are generally undisputed and not complicated. Some time prior to July 2, 1962, Poynor's White Stores, Inc., hereinafter referred to as 'Poynor's,' had appellant Foster write all of their insurance. At that time appellant sent all Poynor's old policies to someone in Albuquerque, but the workmen's compensation policy was not included. On July 2, Poynor's informed appellant of two minor accidents involving their employees, and it was at that time that appellant first became[76 NM 311] aware that no workmen's compensation insurance had been written. Upon advising Poynor's of this fact, at some time before noon on July 2, appellant was told to 'cover' them immediately, and appellant responded that he would and that they were covered. No particular insurance company was designated by Poynor's. Neither did appellant name the company that he would have issue the policy. The Poynors were told that they should check and give appellant the approximately amount of the payroll. Appellant returned to his office and picked up the phone to call Whyburn and Company, general agents for appellee, Maryland Casualty Company, in El Paso, but decided to wait for the payroll figures, and so hung up before completing the call. Appellant was then interrupted by a man who came to his office, and with whom he went out of the office. While out of the office, appellant met with an accident and, as a consequence, never completed the call. The next morning, July 3, appellant received a call from Poynor's and was told that the poyroll was $25,000.00 and, at the same time, that a man had been seriously injured. Thereupon, appellant called Whyburn and Company and explained the situation

Page 673

to a Mr. Connell of that company who said he would determine if they 'were on the risk or not.'

Appellant had an agency contract with appellee which allowed him to bind appellee as a workmen's compensation insurer. He also was agent for three other companies for which he had similar authority. Prior to July 2, 1962, he had written only four workmen's compensation policies, all of which were with appellee. In each instance, it had been his practice to call the general agent and place the insurance. He had not actually written the policies himself. It was his intention to phone the general agent and place the insurance when he started to call on July 2. It was his purpose to have the insurance issued by appellee, but there was no statement made or disclosure of this fact.

This action was commenced by J. W. Mason, an employee of defendant Poynor's who was injured in the July 3rd accident. He brought suit against his employer and against appellee as his employer's workmen's compensation insurer. Pursuant to permission granted by the court, appellee was permitted to file a third-party complaint against appellant and the three other insurance companies for whom he was agent. Summary judgment was granted in favor of these three companies and no appeal taken. All issues concerning the right to compensation and the amount were agreed upon, leaving to be determined by the court only the issue of whether appellant or appellee was bound to pay the loss, it being understood that it would be one or the other. After trial, the court entered findings and conclusions determining the issues in favor of appellee.

[76 NM 312] Appellant sets forth seven points relied on for reversal which, in turn, are argued under four headings. Regardless of the numbering of the points and their grouping for argument, we are impressed that the only real question involved is whether an insurance company can be bound by an oral agreement of its agent to insure when that agent represents several other companies and has not outwardly indicated his intention to act for the particular company.

Since the decision in Harden v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 51 N.M. 55, 178 P.2d 578, there can be no question that oral contracts of insurance are recognized in this state. This is in accord with the general rule. See note, 15 A.L.R. 995, 69 A.L.R. 559, 92 A.L.R. 232. In that...