Reed v. Maryland Nat. Ins. Co.

Decision Date07 March 1969
Citation222 Tenn. 579,26 McCanless 579,439 S.W.2d 256
Parties, 222 Tenn. 579 Roy D. REED, Petitioner, v. MARYLAND NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondent.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Ralph H. Noe, Jr., Morristown, for petitioner.

H. H. McCampbell, Jr., Knoxville, for respondent.

OPINION

DYER, Justice.

This case comes to this Court by grant of the writ of certiorari. In the caption hereof the parties are shown as they appeared in the trial court. The case and issues made arose from the following facts:

Paul Blankenbecler is a licensed issuance agent for Maryland National Insurance Company, operating under the name of P & L Insurance Agency of Knoxville, Tennessee. Blankenbecler was authorized to solicit and accept what is known as substandard automobile policies and in furtherance of same had contacted the Bob Snider Insurance Agency of Morristown, Tennessee. Snider is a licensed insurance agent, but is not an agent of Maryland National Insurance Company. In soliciting these policies Blankenbecler left with Snider instructions and a pamphlet designated on the cover as 'Special Risk Manual,' which, pertinent to the issue here, contained the following language:

Coverage obtained only by application (no binding authority). If risk is acceptable, will be bound as of post mark on letter forwarding completed application along with payment.

Blankenbecler also left with Snider forms to be filled out and signed by one desiring such insurance, which form required the name and address of the applicant type of insurance, type of vehicle, and other pertinent information. The form is headed with the name 'P & L Insurance Agency' and its address. At the top of the form in large letters is the following: 'SPECIAL RISK APPLICATION FOR AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE.'

On December 24, 1965, at about 1:00 o'clock, P.M., Roy D. Reed went to the Bob Snider Insurance Agency to obtain an insurance policy on his automobile. Snider had Reed complete and sign the form left by Blankenbecler and received from Reed the premium due. Snider informed Reed his automobile was covered from that moment and mailed the completed form and premium to Blankenbecler in Knoxville on the same date. Blankenbecler received this completed form with premium and issued a Maryland National Insurance policy covering Reed's automobile with a policy beginning December 28, 1965, this being the post-marked date, in accordance with the manual instructions.

On December 24, 1965, at about 3:00 o'clock, P.M. Reed's automobile was involved in an accident out of which he has suffered a loss. This loss would be covered by the Maryland National Insurance Company policy if such policy was in force at the time of the accident. The sole issue in this case is whether such policy was in force at the time of the accident.

There is only one fact in dispute. Snider testified notwithstanding instructions contained in the Special Risk Manual in regard to date of binding coverage, of which he admitted knowledge, Blankenbecler orally informed him binding coverage would attach upon completion of the proper form and the payment of the premium. Blankenbecler denied making this alleged statement to Snider and stated he had told Snider binding coverage would be in effect in accord with the instructions in the Special Risk...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Lovell v. Sonitrol of Chattanooga, Inc.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • November 10, 1983
    ...444, 330 S.W.2d 361 (1959) O'Shea v. First Federal Savings & Loan, 218 Tenn. 619, 405 S.W.2d 180 (1966) Reed v. Maryland National Ins. Co., 222 Tenn. 579, 439 S.W.2d 256 (1969) V.L. Nicholson Co. v. Transcon Inv., 595 S.W.2d 474 (Tenn.1980) 1 It is arguable that this assignment is too gener......
  • Intersparex Leddin KG v. Al-Haddad
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • October 23, 1992
    ...scope of his apparent authority "and that the principal is estopped from denying the agent's authority." Reed v. Maryland National Ins. Co., 222 Tenn. 579, 439 S.W.2d 256, 257 (1969). In Adams v. Duncan Transfer & Storage, 757 S.W.2d 336, 339 (Tenn.App.1988), it was held that even though an......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT