St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 29920

CourtMississippi Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtAnderson, J.
Citation163 Miss. 114,140 So. 727
PartiesST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co. v. LOVING
Docket Number29920
Decision Date11 April 1932

140 So. 727

163 Miss. 114

ST. PAUL FIRE & MARINE INS. Co.
v.
LOVING

No. 29920

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 11, 1932


Division B

1. INSURANCE. Evidence held to support finding that insured, under fire and theft policy, did not represent to insurer's agent that automobile was taught new, as stated in policy.

Fire and theft insurance policy issued to plaintiff contained representation that plaintiff had purchased the automobile for a stipulated price "new in December, 1930." Policy contained stipulation by the terms of which plaintiff warranted the truth of that statement, and a provision that if the statement was not true the policy should be void. Insurer, after theft of automobile and destruction by fire, refused payment under the terms of policy upon the ground that the plaintiff had purchased the car secondhand, and not new, and that therefore the policy was void.

2. REFORMATION OF INSTRUMENTS.

Evidence held to support finding that representation In fire and theft policy, that insured purchased automobile new, resulted through misunderstanding and fault of Insurer, warranting reformation (Code 1930, section 5196).

3. INSURANCE.

Insurer's agent who inspects risk, issues and delivers policy and collects premium is "general agent" of insurer, and therefore his knowledge is knowledge of insurer (Code 1930, section 5196).

4. INSURANCE.

Where general agent of insurer makes independent Investigation regarding description, character, and condition of property to be insured, and in policy erroneously describes property, equity will reform policy to effectuate parties' Intention.

HON. D. M. RUSSELL, Chancellor.

[163 Miss. 115] APPEAL from the Chancery Court of Harrison County, HON. D. M. RUSSELL, Chancellor.

Suit by Mrs. E. J. Loving against the St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company. Decree for the plaintiff, and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

T. J. Wills, of Hattiesburg, for appellant.

There is a strong presumption that parties who have reduced their agreement to writing have deliberately, adequately and honestly expressed their agreement therein. The evidence to reform such an instrument, to correct alleged mistakes therein or to vary the terms thereof must be clear and convincing--so clear as to be almost free from doubt.

Griffith's Miss. Chan. Prac., par. 589 and Miss. cases cited in footnote 79.

Whether or not a party actually read his policy after it came into his possession, he is bound by the warranties which he made in answer to certain material facts necessary to the making incidentally of the contract.

Springfield Fire & Marine Insurance Co. v. Nix, 138 So. 598.

The court cannot rewrite this policy of insurance so as to make a different contract than that made by the parties. The provision in the policy was valid and binding.

Home Insurance Company v. Harding, 139 So. 603.

R. A. Wallace, of Gulfport, for appellee.

Where an agent of an insurance company inspects a risk, accepts on application for insurance for his principal, issues and delivers the policy of insurance for his principal, and accepts and receipts for the premium due upon the policy of insurance, he is a general agent for the company, and knowledge to him is knowledge to the company.

Sec. 5196, Code 1930; Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 333, 75 So. 768, 76 So. 548; Lamar Life Ins. Co. v. Kemp, 154 Miss. 890, 124 So. 62; Interstate Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Ruble, 133 So. 223; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Anderson,120 Miss. 278, 82 So. 146; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Clark, 154 Miss. 418, 122 So. 551.

Where the agent of an insurance company makes an independent investigation of his own as to the description of an automobile to be insured by his principal, and, in the issuance of a policy of insurance by him for his principal, he erroneously describes the automobile in the policy of insurance covering it, a court of equity will reform the policy of insurance so that it will correctly recite the true description of it, and effectuate the intention of the assured and the insurer.

Big Creek Drug Co. v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 115 Miss. 333, 75 So. 768; Agricultural Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 120 Miss. 278, 82 So. 146; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Clark, 154 Miss. 418, 122 So. 551; McAllister v. Richardson, 103 Miss. 418, 66 So. 570.

OPINION

[163 Miss. 116] Anderson, J.

Appellant insured appellee's De Soto eight-cylinder automobile in the sum of one thousand, one hundred fifty dollars against loss by theft or fire. The policy of insurance contained the representation that appellee had purchased the car for one thousand, one hundred fifty dollars new in December, 1930. There was also a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 practice notes
  • Saucier v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee, 34220
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 11 Noviembre 1940
    ...& Co., 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653; N.Y.Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 129 Miss. 544, 91 So. 455; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. 727. The case of Lamar Life Insurance Company v. Kemp, 154 Miss. 890, 124 So. 62, is not authority to make the act of a special agent of ......
  • Travelers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Price, 30862
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Febrero 1934
    ...160 Miss. 206, 133 So. 223; American Bankers' Ins. Co. v. Lee, 161 Miss. 85, 134 So. 836; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. 727; and Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Thornhill, 165 Miss. 787, 144 So. 861, are all cases in which the insurance companies [169 Miss. ......
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Lester, 31229
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 14 Mayo 1934
    ...Co. v. Price, 132 Ga. 687, 692 S.E. 1074; Teutonic Ins. Co. v. Howell, 54 S.W. 852, 21 Ky. L. 1245; Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. 727; Lamar Life Ins. Co. v. Kemp, 154 Miss 890, 124 So. 62. An insurance company is bound by knowledge of, or notice to, its agent wit......
  • Sands v. Bankers' Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 10 Junio 1937
    ...knowledge he had was imputed to it. Interstate Life, etc., Co. Ruble, 160 Miss. 206, 133 So. 223, 224; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. The Insurance Company next contends that even though Savery was its agent by virtue of the above statute, yet the knowledge which S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 cases
  • Saucier v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee, 34220
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • 11 Noviembre 1940
    ...& Co., 120 Miss. 28, 81 So. 653; N.Y.Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 129 Miss. 544, 91 So. 455; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. 727. The case of Lamar Life Insurance Company v. Kemp, 154 Miss. 890, 124 So. 62, is not authority to make the act of a special agent of ......
  • Travelers' Fire Ins. Co. v. Price, 30862
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 26 Febrero 1934
    ...160 Miss. 206, 133 So. 223; American Bankers' Ins. Co. v. Lee, 161 Miss. 85, 134 So. 836; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. 727; and Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Thornhill, 165 Miss. 787, 144 So. 861, are all cases in which the insurance companies [169 Miss. ......
  • Aetna Ins. Co. v. Lester, 31229
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 14 Mayo 1934
    ...Co. v. Price, 132 Ga. 687, 692 S.E. 1074; Teutonic Ins. Co. v. Howell, 54 S.W. 852, 21 Ky. L. 1245; Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. 727; Lamar Life Ins. Co. v. Kemp, 154 Miss 890, 124 So. 62. An insurance company is bound by knowledge of, or notice to, its agent wit......
  • Sands v. Bankers' Fire Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Virginia Supreme Court of Virginia
    • 10 Junio 1937
    ...knowledge he had was imputed to it. Interstate Life, etc., Co. Ruble, 160 Miss. 206, 133 So. 223, 224; St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co. Loving, 163 Miss. 114, 140 So. The Insurance Company next contends that even though Savery was its agent by virtue of the above statute, yet the knowledge which S......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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