Ramey, U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Broady
| Decision Date | 29 May 1925 |
| Citation | 209 Ky. 279 |
| Parties | C.A. Ramey, United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v. Broady. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
1. Insurance — Policy Deemed in Force from Time of Issuance of Written Certificate, Though Formal Policy Not Issued until Later. — Policy of employers' liability insurance would be deemed in force from time of issuance of written certificate, though formal policy was not issued until later, where certificate signed by insurer through its agents showed an agreement between parties that insurance should be effective from that time, and premium was then charged to insured and credited to insurer, and, when policy was finally issued, it was dated when certificate was issued.
2. Master and Servant — Insurer Held Estopped to Claim Employer was Not Operating Under Compensation Law. — Insurer held estopped to claim that employer, who had applied for employers' liability insurance, was not operating under Workmen's Compensation Law because at time of employe's death he had not filed his application with compensation board as required by Kentucky Stats., section 4946, where such application was lodged with insurer on express understanding that it would file same with compensation board.
Appeal from Barren Circuit Court
H.L. MEANS and JOHN L. WOODBURY for appellants.
BASIL W. RICHARDSON for appellee.
Affirming.
C.A. Ramey was, in the fall of 1920, engaged, under contract, in taking the timber from a tract of land in Barren county, and in that operation had a number of men employed. Desiring to operate under the terms of the compensation law, he on the 29th of September, 1920, applied to Dickinson, the local agent of the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, for such insurance. He executed and delivered to Dickinson forms No. 1 and No. 14 prescribed by the compensation board, wherein he elected to operate under that law, the election to be effective as of that date; and in form No. 1 recited that his method of securing payments of compensation to his employes was insurance by United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, of which Dickinson was the agent. In form No. 14 he certified that he had secured the payment of compensation of his employes by insuring his liability for such injuries as might occur for one year from that date, with United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. Each of these papers was properly executed by him on that day and left with Dickinson to be forwarded to the state agent of the guaranty company at Louisville.
There was appended to form No. 14 the following certificate signed by United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, by Dickinson, agent, and likewise having appended thereto the name of Thomas S. Dugan, who appears to be the state agent of the guaranty company in Kentucky, to-wit:
"The undersigned, the carrier, mentioned in the above certificate, hereby certifies that it issued its policy No. Z-26, 912 to C.R. Ramey insuring the liability of said employer to pay compensation to his, its or their employes, (except if not full coverage state extent of), for injuries occurring between the 29th day of September, 1920, and the 29th of September, 1921."
At the time of the delivery of these papers to the agent at Glasgow it was agreed between the parties that the guaranty company, or its officials, would file them with the compensation board, and would issue the formal policy referred to in the above copied certificate. The papers were forwarded by the local agent to the state agent and by him to the home office of the guaranty company at Baltimore. Between the 29th of September and the 11th of October Ramey employed Oren Broady in his timber operation, and on the 11th of October Oren Broady signed with his employer an agreement to operate under the terms of the compensation law. Then on the 14th of October, early in the morning, Oren Broady, while engaged in the timber operation, was killed by a falling limb, and at that time, so far as we can determine from the record, the formal policy of insurance had probably not been issued, nor had forms No. 1 and No. 14, executed by Ramey on the 29th of September and turned over to the agents of the guaranty company, been filed with the compensation board as had been agreed.
Upon an application made by the widow and two infant children of Broady to the compensation board, an order was entered, after a hearing, dismissing the application because Ramey had not at the date of Broady's death elected to operate under the provisions of the act by filing with the compensation board the notice required under section 4946, Kentucky Statutes, which provides:
"Every employer accepting the provisions of this act shall at the time of such acceptance file with the board in substantially the form prescribed by it, and annually thereafter, or as often as may be necessary, evidence of his compliance with the provisions of this section."
Thereafter the widow and two infant children filed this suit to review the action of the compensation board,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hogue v. Wurdack
...cit. 103.7 Garrison v. Bonfield, 57 N.M. 533, 260 P.2d 718, 721; L. E. Marks Company v. Moore, 251 Ky. 63, 64 S.W.2d 426; Ramey v. Broady, 209 Ky. 279, 272 S.W. 740; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Dudley, 180 Tenn. 191, 173 S.W.2d 142, 143; Herndon v. Slayton, 263 Ala. 677, 83 So.2d 726, 730(2); Ham......
-
Dawson's Dependents v. Delta Western Exploration Co.
...if any accident arose to him.' This was a representation to him that the employer was operating under the act. Ramey v. Broady, 209 Ky. 279, 272 S.W. 740 (1925), applied estoppel to deny election to come under the act to both the employer and insurance carrier, where the latter's agent had ......
-
Herndon v. Slayton
...principle involved is the same. The principle of estoppel as between employer and employee was also applied in the cases of Ramey v. Broady, 209 Ky. 279, 272 S.W. 740; and Ham v. Mullins Lumber Co., 193 S.C. 66, 7 S.E.2d 712. On review by certiorari of judgment in workmen's compensation sui......
-
Shuman Co. v. May
...without merit. McClary v. McClary, 274 Ky. 299, 118 S.W.2d 687, 688; L. E. Marks Co. v. Moore, 251 Ky. 63, 64 S.W.2d 426; Ramey v. Broady, 209 Ky. 279, 272 S.W. 740. Appellant urges that the judgment of the circuit court is erroneous in approving the award because the Board permitted the me......