Pearl Assur. Co. v. National Ins. Agency
Decision Date | 30 September 1942 |
Docket Number | 116-1941,112-1941 |
Citation | 28 A.2d 334,150 Pa.Super. 265 |
Parties | Pearl Assurance Company, Ltd. v. National Insurance Agency, Inc., et al., Appellants |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 15, 1941.
Appeals from judgment of C. P. No. 2 Phila. Co., June T. 1940, No. 597, in case of Pearl Assurance Company, Limited v. National Insurance Agency, Inc., et al.
Trespass. Case submitted for decision on facts stipulated.
Findings and judgments for plaintiff, opinion by Smith, P. J Defendants appealed.
Reargument ordered.
Albert M. Hankin, for appellants.
C. Laurence Cushmore, Jr., with him White & Staples, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.
This was an action of trespass brought by an insurance company against a corporate insurance broker -- which seems to have been a 'one-man' corporation -- and the 'one-man' individual who was its president, and himself performed all the acts complained of, for the recovery of some twenty-two hundred dollars damages, sustained by the plaintiff in consequence of the alleged unlawful conversion by them of the net premiums on certain insurance policies, which had been intrusted to them by plaintiff for the purpose of delivering the policies and collecting the premiums from the insured or their insurance brokers -- where there was an overwriting broker -- and remitting the net proceeds, after deducting their commissions, to the plaintiff insurance company.
After the filing of an affidavit of defense, a pre-trial conference was had, which resulted in the parties entering into a stipulation as to facts; and the case was then submitted to a judge -- sitting without a jury -- for decision on the facts as stipulated.
The trial judge made certain findings of fact in accordance with the stipulations, and on the basis of these findings and his conclusions of law from them, decided that the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against both defendants in the amount of $ 1,855.57, the difference between that figure and the amount claimed by the plaintiff representing premiums that had not been actually received by the defendants.
Exceptions to the findings and conclusions of the trial judge were dismissed and judgments were entered for the plaintiff and against the defendants in accordance with the decision of the trial judge. Defendants severally appealed.
The corporate defendant did not deny its liability in assumpsit for the full amount claimed by the plaintiff; but it denied any liability in trespass, based principally on the point that it was licensed as an insurance broker, not as an insurance agent, under the Insurance Department Act of 1921, P. L. 789, and its amendments -- Sections 601, 621, etc. -- 40 P. S. §§ 231 and 251. And the individual defendant denied any liability, on the ground that he was acting only as the agent of the corporate defendant.
We are all of the opinion that the division of representatives of insurance companies by the Insurance Department Act into insurance agents and insurance brokers does not prevent an insurance broker from acting as an agent of an insurance company in the collection of the premium from the insured and paying it over to the insurance company. See Gosch v. Firemen's Ins. Co., 33 Pa.Super. 496. One does not have to be licensed as either an insurance broker or insurance agent to do this. Any person, or any corporation whose business bears any relation to insurance, or to the delivery of papers, deeds, contracts, etc. may be authorized by an insurance company to deliver a policy and collect the premium; and when so collected, the duty attaches to pay over the amount so received, less the costs, etc. incident thereto, to the insurance company. As pointed out in Transcontinental Oil Co. v. Atlas Assurance Co. Ltd., 278 Pa. 558, 123 A. 497, the purpose of Article VI (P. L. 810) of said act was to compel registration of the classes of individuals named, and to prohibit the doing of certain acts declared unlawful. "There is nothing in the statute relied upon which may be said to change the wellestablished rule that the insured, in making payment, may safely rest on the implied authority to receive the premium, which the company confers on the person to whom the policy has been given for delivery". (P. 565).
However, the judge of this court, to whom the case was first assigned, in his examination of the law, found a case (Life Association v. Catlin, 2 Walker 338), which the industry of counsel on both sides had not brought to our attention. In that case the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court below (Trunkey, P. J.) and held that an action in trover would not lie by an insurance company to recover the amount of premiums on policies received by the defendant as its agent, on which he was to receive a percentage as his commission or compensation. The court said: This was followed by this court in Cherry v. Paller, 91 Pa.Super. 417, an action brought for the alleged conversion of money received by defendant as authorized agent for the collection of rents for the plaintiff principal. In affirming the lower court, which sustained defendant's affidavit of defense raising a question of law, this court said, speaking through Porter, P. J., (P. 420).
But a majority of the court are presently of opinion that acts of assembly passed since 1875, when Life Association v. Catlin, 2 Walker 338, was decided, warranted an action of trespass for the tortious conversion of money, even though the identical specie or currency was not required or intended to be delivered to the plaintiff.
We have departed widely from the old common law action of trover and conversion. Originally it was designed for cases where goods had been lost and were found [1] and had been converted, without right, by the finder to his own use. In such case the owner of the goods, or one having a general or special property in them, might sue the finder in trover to recover the value of the goods so wrongfully converted.
The remedy was extended to the wrongful conversion of goods which had not been lost and found; [2] but instead of issuing a new writ of trespass on the case applicable to such circumstances, resort was had to the action of trover, by the use of a fiction, which required the plaintiff to aver (1) a loss and (2) a finding -- although there had been none -- which averments were not traversable, followed by an averment of wrongful conversion, which was the gist of the action.
We have long since abandoned the use of the fiction [150 Pa.Super. 271] -- so much so that many lawyers are wholly unaware of its history -- but we have insisted on retaining many of the outworn and outmoded incidents of the original common law action.
By the Act of May 25, 1887, P. L. 271, the General Assembly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
St. Louis Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Witney
...agency, there may be a principal and agent relationship outside of the scope of the statute. See Pearl Assur. Co. Ltd. v. National Ins. Agency Inc., 150 Pa.Super. 265, at page 268, 28 A.2d 334, and see Follmer J., Jones v. Protection Mut. Fire Ins. Co., D.C.E.D.Pa., 95 F.Supp. 589. 15 Rossi......
-
Baram v. Farugia, 78-1770
...that the defendant had appropriated the plaintiff's chattel, for which he must pay. Pearl Assurance Co., Ltd. v. National Ins. Agency, Inc., 150 Pa.Super. 265, 270-71, 28 A.2d 334, 337 (1942) (per curiam), Aff'd on reargument, 151 Pa.Super. 146, 30 A.2d 333 (1943). A plaintiff who proved co......
-
D'Ambrosio v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.
...§ 1929 (Purdon). The U.I.P.A. sanctions cannot preclude the policyholder's recovery in tort. See Pearl Assurance Co. v. National Insurance Agency, 150 Pa.Super. 265, 28 A.2d 334 (1942), aff'd on rehearing, 151 Pa.Super. 146, 30 A.2d 333 Second, the majority's conclusion "that the Unfair Ins......
-
D'Ambrosio v. Pennsylvania Nat. Mut. Cas. Ins. Co.
...The U.I.P.A. sanctions cannot preclude the policyholder's recovery in tort. See Pearl Assurance Co. v. National Insurance Agency, 150 Pa.Super. 265, 28 A.2d 334 (1942), aff'd on rehearing, 151 Pa.Super. 146, 30 A.2d 333 (1943). Second, the majority's conclusion "that the Unfair Insurance Pr......