Pottsville Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Minnequa Springs Imp., to Use, &C.
| Decision Date | 01 May 1882 |
| Citation | 100 Pa. 137 |
| Parties | Pottsville Mutual Fire Ins. Co. <I>versus</I> Minnequa Springs Improvement Co., to use, etc. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Before SHARSWOOD, C. J., MERCUR, GORDON, PAXSON, TRUNKEY, STERRETT and GREEN, JJ.
ERROR to the Court of Common Pleas of Bradford county: Of January Term 1881, No. 294.
A. W. Schalck and John F. Sanderson (Overton with them), for the plaintiff in error.—The condition that the policy should not be binding until the actual payment of the premium in cash was not fulfilled by the credit entry of Crane, the agent of the insured, in favor of Haeseler, the agent of the insurer. The premium never was paid at all and the policy was recalled before the fire. Haeseler was by the express terms of the policy expressly debarred from power to waive any condition of the policy: Marland v. Royal Ins. Co., 21 P. F. Smith 393; Greene v. Lycoming Fire Ins Co., 10 Norris 389; Mentz v. Lancaster Fire Ins. Co., 29 P. F. Smith 475; Waynesboro Mut. F. Ins. Co. v. Conover, 2 Outerbridge 384.
Bently and Williams (with them Parker, Angle and Buffington), for the defendant in error.—The policy was duly executed and delivered by the insurance company, through their accredited agent to the plaintiff, who in good faith paid the premium to the person from whom he received it. This is all that was necessary to constitute a binding contract between the parties. The plaintiff was in no default. Insurance companies cannot, by wordy and obscure printed conditions indorsed on a policy, cast on a bona fide insurer the loss resulting from errors of their own agents acting within the scope of their employment. Dr. Green was the plaintiff's agent for the application for the insurance; after the insurance was effected, he became the defendant's agent in the transmission and delivery of the policy and receipt of the premium. If the premium failed to reach the company, it was not the plaintiff's fault, and he cannot be deprived of his rights evidenced by the complete contract. A principal cannot at the same time confer general power upon an agent, and stipulate that he will not be bound by acts performed by such agent within the scope of such employment. The agent here was entrusted with policies executed in blank, to become valid when countersigned and delivered by the agent; and persons dealing with such an agent are not bound to look beyond his apparent authority: Wood on Insurance, 614, 615, 667, 669, 670, &c.
The sixth condition of the policy in suit is in the following words: "No insurance, whether original or continued, shall be considered as binding until the actual cash payment of the premium, into the office of the company."
The policy on its face contains as one of its terms the following provision: "And it is moreover agreed and declared, that this policy is made and accepted in reference to the application, also the conditions hereto annexed, which are hereby made a part of this policy, and to be used and resorted to, in order to explain the rights and obligations of the parties hereto."
It cannot be doubted that both parties to this contract agreed that it was not to be binding until the premium was paid in cash into the office of the company. The question whether such an agreement is unreasonable, is immaterial. It is the actual contract of the parties and it binds them and necessarily controls the action of the courts, who have no power to alter the solemn contracts of parties where there is neither fraud, mistake nor imposition. In the present case the premium was never paid into the office of the company, nor was it paid in any manner to the company, or to its authorized agent. But it is claimed that in point of fact the assured did pay the premium, and that he paid it in such a manner as that the company is bound by it.
It is true that the premium was paid by the assured, and the question is whether the manner of the payment was such as to obligate the company on the policy. This leads us to consider the precise facts affecting the subject. Jacob Tome was the president of the Minnequa Springs Improvement Company, the plaintiff in the suit, and was also a bond-holder under a mortgage on the property of the company. Desiring to have the property insured, he negotiated with one Dr. S. F Green, who was engaged in the business of placing insurances, who undertook to obtain policies to the amount of $25,000 on the hotel and furniture. Dr. Green testified that he represented several companies as agent; but he did not represent the company defendant in this case. He also said that he went to Mr. Tome and solicited the insurance. Dr. Green was unable to place the whole amount of the desired insurance and he thereupon applied to H. J. Clinger, another insurance-agent and broker, but who did not at that time represent the defendant. Clinger testified that Green applied to him to place the whole $25,000 and that he did place $20,000 in companies for which he was agent, and the other $5,000 he sent to Mr. Robt. Crane, a broker, in Philadelphia. Green and Clinger resided at Williamsport and conducted their business at that place. Crane, testified that he was an insurance agent and broker doing business in Philadelphia, but that he was not the agent of, nor had any connection with the defendant.
He further testified that as an insurance broker simply, he applied to Mr. A. S. Haeseler, the agent of the defendant in Philadelphia for a policy of $2,500 on the hotel property, to be issued by the defendant. The latter, after examination of the risk, accepted it, and made out and delivered to Crane the policy in suit. He subsequently notified Crane that his company declined the policy and endeavored to get it back, but without success. Haeseler delivered the policy, properly executed, to Crane, without payment of the premium. Crane sent it to Clinger, who delivered it to Green, and the latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meadows.,v,peoples Life Ins. Co.
...Co. v. Blount, 33 Ga.App. 642, 127 S.E. 892; Etenburn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co, 118 Okl. 55, 246 P. 383; Pottsville Ins. Co. v. Minnequa Springs Improvement Co, 100 Pa. 137; Wilkins v. State Ins. Co, 43 Minn. 177, 45 N.W. 1. The prospect's written application herein forewarned her of po......
-
Meadows v. Peoples Life Ins. Co.
... ... 423, 298 P. 724. Consider, also, Eagan v. Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 10 W.Va. 583, 588, and Croft ... Co., 118 Okl. 55, ... 246 P. 383; Pottsville Ins. Co. v. Minnequa Springs ... Improvement ... ...
-
Meadows v. Peoples Life Ins. Co.
...Co. v. Blount, 33 Ga. App. 642, 127 S. E. 892; Etenburn V. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 118 Okla. 55, 246 P. 383; Pottsville Ins. Co. V. Minnequa Springs Impr. Co., 100 Pa. 137; Wilkins V. State Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 177, 45 N. W. 1. The prospect's written application herein forewarned her of p......
-
Corcoran v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York
... ... 203 179 Pa. 132 Frances Corcoran, for the use of Wm. H. Dill, for the use of S. B. Philson, ... "SEC'Y OF THE ... MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., New York ... "Dear ... Sir: -- ... Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U.S. 572; Union Mut ... Life Ins. Co. v. Mowry, 96 U.S. 544; Fire ... Royal Ins ... Co., 71 Pa. 393; Pottsville Ins. Co. v. Minnequa ... Springs, 100 Pa. 137; ... ...