Prichard v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12848.,12848.
• Citation: 203 S.W. 223
• Parties: PRICHARD v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

203 S.W. 223

PRICHARD v. CONNECTICUT FIRE INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

No. 12848.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 29, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Vernon County ; B. G. Thurmond, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by Edmund K. Prichard against the Connecticut Fire Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Charles E. Gilbert, of Nevada, Mo., for appellant. D. A. Murphy, A. J. King, and W. Bowker, all of Nevada, Mo., for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This is an action upon a fire insurance policy. Plaintiff having recovered a verdict and judgment, defendant has appealed. The facts show that plaintiff and his wife were the owners of a frame mercantile building in the town of Walker, Mo., ant desired to insure the same. On February 14, 1917, plaintiff's wife went to the office of Ferry Bros., the agents of defendant at Nevada, Mo., and told a Mr. Ferry, the person in charge, that she wanted insurance on the property in the sum of $450, and that the insurance was to be in her husband's name, explaining that the property was owned by both of them. Mr. Ferry told her that the amount of the premium was $21.50, and plaintiff's wife paid Mr. Ferry that amount, and received a receipt for the same, signing a written application for the insurance. After this was done plaintiff's wife asked Mr. Ferry, "What about the insurance; are we insured now?" and he replied, "Yes, you are insured; rest easy; * * * you are insured now ; * * * you will get your policy in a few days."

The insurance was from February 14, 1917, to February 14, 1918. The application was made out by Mr. Ferry, and afterwards signed by plaintiff's wife by affixing plaintiff's name thereto. About 8 a. m. on February 24, 1917, the building was destroyed by fire, and the next day plaintiff received a letter from the agents, which was mailed at 11 a. m. on the day of the fire, stating that the company had refused to write the insurance and returning the premium which plaintiff refused to accept. A letter, dated February 21, 1917, from the company to its agents, refusing to write the insurance, was introduced in evidence by defendant. Defendant was a foreign fire insurance company, and its agents, with whom plaintiff had this transaction, had been such agents at Nevada, Mo., for some years. These agents had power to solicit and take applications, to collect premiums, and to countersign and deliver policies for defendant. Defendant introduced a contract between it and its said agents wherein it was provided that the agents should be soliciting agents, "with power to receive applications for insurance in Nevada and its vicinity, * * * such applications to be submitted to the office * * * of said company, at Chicago, and not to be binding upon said company until approved and policy issued by the managers of said company, at Chicago."

Defendant makes the point that the only power conferred upon its agents at Nevada was the power to solicit applications for insurance, and to submit them to the company for approval before any insurance became binding upon the company ; that the agents could not bind the company by a...