Mesterman v. Home Mut. Ins. Co. of California

• Decision Date: 17 January 1893
• Citation: 5 Wash. 524,32 P. 458
• Parties: MESTERMAN v. HOME MUT. INS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

32 P. 458

5 Wash. 524

MESTERMAN v. HOME MUT. INS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 17, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Spokane county; R. B. Blake, Judge.

Action on a policy of insurance by Albrecht Mesterman against the Home Mutual Insurance Company of California. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Stott, Boise & Stott, for appellant.

Thomas C. Griffitts, for respondent.

HOYT J.

Although there are some cases holding the contrary, we think the decided weight of authority, as well as the better reasoning is in favor of the rule that an insurance company is estopped from asserting the invalidity of its policy at the time it was issued for the violation of any of the conditions of such policy, or the application therefor, if, at the time that it was so issued, the fact of such violation was known to the company, or its duly-authorized agent. That the Northwest Fire & Marine Insurance Company had knowledge, at the time of the issuance of the policy by the appellant, of the existence of the additional insurance which it is alleged rendered it void, is made entirely clear by the proofs, and is in fact conceded; hence, under the rule above stated, a policy issued by it could not be avoided on account of such additional insurance.

It only remains to determine as to whether or not the appellant is chargeable with knowledge of the facts thus known to said company. There is some proof tending to show that the fact of such additional insurance was communicated to the appellant but such fact was not established by undisputed proofs. It follows that, if there was no other ground upon which the appellant could be held liable, the action of the court in taking the case from the jury would have been erroneous, as it is not competent for a court to instruct a jury to find a verdict unless the facts warranting such instruction are established by undisputed proofs. It will therefore be necessary for us to investigate the relation which the said Northwest Fire & Marine Insurance Company bore to the appellant and to the respondent. If in what it did it was acting solely as agent of the respondent, then the appellant would not be bound by the knowledge which it had any further than the same was communicated to it. If, on the contrary, it was acting as the agent of the appellant, the knowledge which it had was in law the knowledge of the appellant, whether communicated...