Speck v. Pattillo
| Decision Date | 19 July 1898 |
| Citation | 104 Ga. 772,30 S.E. 962 |
| Parties | RAM SPECK. v. PATTILLO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Insurance—Agent—Liability to Insured— Contracts.
1. An agent of a fire insurance company, authorized to contract for insurance in its behalf, cannot, without the company's consent, become in his individual character the agent of a property owner who desires to obtain insurance in that company. This is so for the reason that an agreement to act as agent for both of the parties would be an undertaking to perform inconsistent duties, and a mutual agency of this kind requires the consent of both parties.
2. A fortiori, a person who is such an agent of a particular insurance company cannot be made individually liable to a property owner for damages arising from the breach of a contract, either general or special, to which the company itself is not a party, and which is made "as agent" by the person first referred to, whereby he undertakes to keep the property of the other covered by insurance in that company, or to renew, upon the expiration thereof, a particular policy already in existence, the party seeking the insurance undertaking on his part to pay the premiums whenever bills for the same are presented.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.
Action by I. R. Ramspeck against W. P. Pattillo. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.
P. P. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
J. E. Van Valkenburg, for defendant in error.
SIMMONS, C. J. Ramspeck brought suit against Pattillo for breach of contract, the petition alleging: Defendant was agent of a certain insurance company, and had been, as such, insuring in said company plaintiff's property regularly during a period of from 10 to 20 years, renewing all policies at their expiration with new policies in the same company, unless otherwise instructed by plaintiff, and sending bills for the premiums thereof to the plaintiff from time to time as suited defendant's convenience, which bills plaintiff had always paid, and which new and renewal policies plaintiff had always accepted. Some five years before the filing of the petition, this custom took the form of a more explicit agreement between plaintiff and defendant, whereby plaintiff promised to continue to insure his property with defendant, In preference to any other company or agent; and defendant bound himself to renew and rewrite all policies of plaintiff in said company as aforesaid, and to keep plaintiff's property, once placed with defendant, covered with insurance, plaintiff to pay all bills presented to him for premiums, and whereby It was agreed that none of plaintiff's property should become uninsured by mere expiration of thepolicy. The consideration for this agreement was the mutual promises made by the parties; the convenience, profit, and increased business coming to Pattillo by reason of the agreement; the lessened labor of soliciting the insurance; the certainty of payment of premiums; the knowledge of the condition, title, and insurance of the property insured, and the consequent lessening of the risk; and the large sums of money paid, not only for insurance, but in consideration of the agreement, plaintiff having paid large sums in conformity to the agreement. Further, plaintiff refrained from seeking insurance elsewhere. Plaintiff was owner of certain land with a building thereon, regularly insured in defendant's company for $900, the policy to expire on January 23, 1S93. Shortly before that time, defendant requested plaintiff to renew the policy, stating that there had been an Increase in the rate; and plaintiff agreed and instructed defendant to continue the insurance, but in the amount of $750, and for a term of three years. All of this was agreed to, and memoranda made. Plaintiff thus became bound for the premiums upon the policy, and paid all bills for premiums sent or presented to him thereafter by defendant to amounts aggregating much more than the premiums of the above-mentioned policy. Plaintiff paid the premiums on the policy ordered, as he had agreed to do, and supposed that the policy had been written; but, In fact, this was never done, and the failure to do it was the result of defendant's negligence, and in violation of their long, fixed, and uniform custom and the express agreement. Defendant did not notify plaintiff of the failure so to insure, but deceived plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial