Robison v. Ohio Farmers' Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 02 December 1892
• Parties: ROBISON et al. v. OHIO FARMERS' INS. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

53 N.W. 821

93 Mich. 533

ROBISON et al. v. OHIO FARMERS' INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 2, 1892

Error to circuit court, Washtenaw county; EDWARD D. KINNE, Judge.

Action by Fred Robison and Laura Robison against the Ohio Farmers' Insurance Company, on a fire insurance policy. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Thomas E. Barkworth, for appellant.

Thompson & Harriman, for appellees.

MONTGOMERY, J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance issued to the plaintiffs. The only defense interposed in this court is an alleged misrepresentation in regard to the title. The application upon which the policy was written contains the following questions and answers: "Question. Are you the absolute owner of the real estate? Number of acres on the farm? Answer. Yes; 170 acres. Q. Is the deed in your name? A. Yes. Q. Are you the absolute owner of the personal property to be insured? A. Yes." That the assured had an insurable interest in the property is not questioned. It is also found as a fact that the company, by its agent who issued the policy and who took the application, was fully cognizant of the true state of the title, and after a full statement to him, and under his advice, the plaintiffs accepted the policy. Under these circumstances, the company is estopped from asserting that it was misled by the statements contained in the application. Crouse v. Insurance Co., 79 Mich. 249, 44 N.W. 496; Kitchen v. Insurance Co., 57 Mich. 135, 23 N.W. 616; Insurance Co. v. Earle, 33 Mich. 143. It is claimed, however, that as the application contained the statement that "the applicant hereby declares and warrants that the above answers are true, and no statement contradictory to the above was made to or by the agent of the company, and he agrees that this declaration shall be the basis of and form part of the contract or policy between the assured and the company," the plaintiffs are not in a position to insist that the company is estopped. This provision is the same as that considered in the case of Beebe v. Insurance Co., 53 N.W. 818, (decided at the present term,) which case rules the present. The judgment will be affirmed, with costs. The other justices concurred.