Mayhew v. Phoenix Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 09 May 1871 |
| Citation | 23 Mich. 105 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | Ira Mayhew v. The Phoenix Insurance Company |
Heard May 5, 1871
Appeal in chancery from Wayne circuit.
The opinion contains a statement of the case.
Decree affirmed without costs.
George H. Penniman and Theodore Romeyn, for complainant.
J. W A. S. Cullen and G. V. N. Lothrop, for defendant.
The bill in this cause was filed to obtain relief against a compromise made on a loss under a fire policy, claimed to have been induced by the fraud of the adjusting agent. The compromise was for five hundred dollars, which is claimed to have been but one-fourth of the real loss.
The fraud set up consists in complainant's having been misled by the acts and representations of one Ireton, the adjuster on whom he claims he relied, and who is said to have been aware of and abused the confidence. The misrepresentations complained of relate to what were the legal rights of the complainant concerning the classes of property covered by the policy, and the effect of leaving his college rooms closed and unoccupied more than thirty days; which the agent claimed vacated the policy. There was also a charge that by concealment of an arbitration clause, and by statements, Ireton induced complainant to believe he could get no redress except by litigation; and it was further set up that complainant was deceived by him in regard to the extent of damage to the property.
The whole burden of the case, therefore, depends on the breach of duty arising out of confidential relations requiring the utmost good faith in mutual dealings; and there is no class of cases more readily relieved in equity than such abuses. We cannot but perceive that if complainant was entitled to relief under the policy, he has not been favorably dealt with. He appears to have had a good cause of action, and to have compromised it on terms that no high-minded business man without strong convictions of its legal doubtfulness ought to have made. But this of itself is no ground of relief, unless there has been some tangible misconduct of such a nature as to amount to a breach of legal duty, and we think, upon the facts, that the complainant is himself chiefly responsible for his misfortune.
We do not think it necessary to review the facts at length, but we will simply indicate some of the more prominent features of the case. Immediately after the loss, which occurred in September, 1868, while complainant was on a visit in Albion, he returned to Detroit, the local agent at Albion having advised him to leave the premises as they were until the adjuster should come, of whose coming complainant was to be notified. The property insured consisted of various articles used more or less directly in connection with a commercial college which complainant had conducted in Albion, up to the preceding May. On the arrival of Ireton an examination was made of the effects, and certain inventories were used for that purpose. Ireton disputed the complainant's right to any thing whatever, on account of the premises being left vacant. He also disputed the right of complainant to include various articles of furniture and stationery and books, and he disputed the amount of damage claimed to have been suffered on various articles. It does not distinctly appear whether or not complainant had made out any statement in dollars and cents except as to the stationery and text-books destroyed. Upon the other articles there seems to have been a rough estimate. Ireton did not propose to go into the details, but offered a round sum of five hundred dollars. Complainant declined and expostulated, but at last this was agreed upon and closed. During the various interviews, there is no doubt Ireton gave his opinions positively, and there is as little doubt that complainant was considerably influenced, but not persuaded by them. He acquiesced unwillingly, and did not consider himself justly dealt by. The question is, how far does this show any breach of confidence?
There was in the policy a provision for arbitration in case of difference as to the amount of loss, but not as to any other question. Complainant during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n
...processes the parties are in an obvious adversarial position and generally deal with each other at arm's length. See Mayhew v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 23 Mich. 105 (1871) (Where the insured has the same knowledge or means of knowledge as the insurer, the insurer cannot be regarded as occupying an......
-
Johnson v. Wausau Ins. Co.
...processes the parties are in an obvious adversarial position and generally deal with each other at arm's length. See Mayhew v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 23 Mich. 105 (1871) (Where the insured has the same knowledge or means of knowledge as the insurer, the insurer cannot be regarded as occupying an......
-
Viallet v. Consolidated Ry. & Power Co.
...all ordinary cases sufficient safeguard against frauds of that character." (Thompson v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 46 Am. Rep. 358; Mayhew v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 23 Mich. 105; Ins. Co. v. Reed, 33 Ohio St. 283.) In order that fraud may he found there must be some evidence of fraud and not a mere state......
-
Industrial Mutual Indemnity Company v. Thompson
...6 Ark. 513. See also 112 N.Y. 467; 55 N.Y. 400; 98 N.C. 89; 46 Am. Rep. 357; 101 S.W. 1125; 61 Mo. 354; 35 Mo.App. 426; 33 Ohio St. 283; 23 Mich. 105. Before appellee could maintain her action, she must have returned, or offered to return, the money received by way of compromise. 62 Ark. 27......