Southern States Fire Ins. Co. v. Vann
| Decision Date | 28 April 1915 |
| Citation | 68 So. 647,69 Fla. 549 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN STATES FIRE INS. CO. v. VANN et al. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Taylor County; Mallory F. Horne, Judge.
Bill by J. R. Vann and others against the Southern States Fire Insurance Company. From an order overruling a demurrer to the bill, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 68 So. 645.
Syllabus by the Court
Even a provision that conditions printed in a policy of insurance shall not be waived except by agreement indorsed on the policy may itself be waived by the company through its agents, and such waiver may be implied by law from the conduct of the agent, acting within the apparent scope of his authority.
A provision in a fire insurance policy that the policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed thereon, shall be void if the insured shall procure other contracts of insurance on the same property, is inserted for the benefit of the insurer, and may be waived.
The clause in the fire insurance policy placing a limitation upon the power of any officer, agent, or other representative of the company in the waiver of any provision or condition in the policy does not supersede the law making the principal liable for the negligent, wrongful, or fraudulent act of its agent, or the law of equitable estoppel, and this clause of limitation may itself be waived by the company through its agent acting within the apparent scope of his authority.
An insurance company cannot make its local agent the medium through which all the benefits of a policy flow from the insured to it, and then deny that the agent has authority to represent the company when the benefits of the insured are involved.
S.D. Clarke, of Monticello, and W. T. Hendry, of Perry, for appellant.
W. B Davis, of Perry, for appellees.
This appeal is from an order overruling a demurrer to a bill of complaint which, in effect, alleges:
That a policy of insurance was issued on a certain store building for $400, and on a stock of merchandise for $2,500, by R. J Paterson, agent of the defendant company; that the property was destroyed by fire; 'that the defendant fails and refuses to pay said policy and the amount of said loss and damage, and to make good the same to your orators, because and on account of the fact that the defendant claims that in and by said policy it is provided that the said policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed thereon or added thereto, should be void if the insured had at the time of the issuance of said policy or should thereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by said policy, and that there was no agreement indorsed on said policy or added thereto for any other insurance or for any concurrent insurance upon any of the property insured in and by said policy; that at the time of the execution of the said policy and of the issuance of the same by the said defendant, and at the time of the acceptance of the said policy by the G. C. Vann & Co., and the payment of the premium on the said policy by the said G. C. Vann & Co., it was understood and agreed between said G. C. Vann & Co. and the said R. J. Paterson, who was then and there the agent of and representing the said defendant, that concurrent insurance to the amount of $1,500 could be secured and taken on the said stock of merchandise; that the said defendant issued the said policy with the understanding and agreement that $1,500 additional insurance should be taken and allowed on the said stock of merchandise, and that the said policy allowed and permitted the same; that your orators thought and believed that the said insurance policy provided for and allowed the said additional insurance, for the said J. R. Vann told the said R. J. Paterson at the time of taking the said policy and paying for the same that your orators, the said G. C. Vann & Co., wanted $1,500 additional insurance on the said stock of merchandise, and then and there requested that the said R. J. Paterson give him another policy for $1,500, and the said R. J. Paterson then and there said and stated to your orators and to the said J. R. Vann that his company would not take any additional insurance on this stock of merchandise, but that the goods were there, and that other companies would take the said risk and insurance, and for the said G. C. Vann & Co. to go ahead and get the additional insurance to the amount of $1,500 on the said stock of merchandise, and that it would be perfectly all right, and that the said policy issued by the said defendant was so issued as to permit and allow said additional insurance on said stock of merchandise to the amount of $1,500; that, through mistake and error upon the part of the said R. J. Paterson, there was no indorsement made upon said policy or attached thereto, and there was no agreement thereon or added thereto by which the said additional insurance was allowed and permitted, that your orators were not familiar with insurance policies and the insurance business, and did not read the said policy or examine the same, and would not have understood the terms and provisions of said policy if they had read it, as the said insurance policy is couched in numerous and divers technical terms and provisions which said terms and provisions are in many instances difficult of construction by the courts; that your orators did not notice that the said policy had no provision for other insurance, and did not read the said policy and observe that it had a provision rendering the policy void when other insurance was taken on the property unless an agreement permitting said insurance was indorsed on the policy or added thereto, and your orators were wholly ignorant of such a provision, and were wholly ignorant of the fact that no such provision was indorsed or added to the said policy, and by the inadvertence, accident, and mistake of the said R. J. Paterson and of the said R. J. Paterson & Co., agents of the defendant, the said indorsement was left off of the said policy, and no agreement was added thereto authorizing any additional insurance; that your orators, relying upon the representation of the said agent of the said defendant, and believing that the said policy would not be affected by additional insurance, thereafter, to wit, on the 17th day of September, 1913, procured from the Atlas Assurance Company additional insurance on the said stock of merchandise to the amount of $1,500, and that the said defendant now claims and pretends that the said additional insurance renders the said policy void; that the said defendant is estopped from setting up said defense, and has waived the said defense; that the said defendant, knowing that your orators intended and expected to procure insurance and additional...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Columbian Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gipson
... ... Vance, ... Insurance (2 Ed.) pages 534-535; Southern States Fire ... Ins. Co. v. Vann, 69 Fla. 549, 68 So. 647, L. R. A ... ...
-
American Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co.
... ... was not engaged in the transaction of business in the state ... of Florida, but states the fact to be that at that time, ... and as far back as 1908, the defendant was transacting ... Life Insurance Co. v. Head, 234 U.S. 149, 34 S.Ct. 879, ... 58 L.Ed. 1259; Simon v. Southern Ry. Co., 236 U.S ... 115, 35 S.Ct. 255, 59 L.Ed. 492. The defendant states that ... nearly all ... Co. v. Brown, 60 Fla. 83, 53 So ... 838; Southern States Fire Ins. Co. v. Vann, 69 Fla ... 549, 68 So. 647, L. R. A. 1916B, 1189; Palatine Insurance ... Co. v. Whitfield, ... ...
-
Parsons v. Federal Realty Corp.
... ... the fire insurance business for over twenty-five years, and ... was ... been before the Supreme Court of the United States, and was ... construed by that court in Mutual Life Ins ... (2d) 362 (C. C. A. 5th Circuit); Southern States Fire ... Ins. Co. v. Vann, 69 Fla. 549, 68 So ... ...
-
Agricultural Insurance Co. of New York v. Anderson
...Ins. Co., 157 N.W. 959; Simpson v. Farmers Ins. Co., 151 N.W. 610; Union Ins. Co. v. Wilkinson, 20 Law Ed. (U.S.) 617; Southern States Fire Ins. Co. v. Vance, 68 So. 647; 1916B. (L. R. A.) 1189; Yoch v. Home Mutual Co., 34 L. R. A. 859; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Weeks, 26 P. 410; Porte v. Ins. Co......