State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Green
| Decision Date | 21 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 4868 |
| Citation | 1915 OK 1092,62 Okla. 214,166 P. 105 |
| Parties | STATE MUT. INS. CO. v. GREEN. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Insurance--Fire Policy--Title to Property--Knowledge of Agent--Imputation to Insurer.
In the absence of fraud on the part of the insured, disclosures as to actual status of title to insured property made by the insured or the agent of the insured to a soliciting agent of a fire insurance company at the time of the taking of the application for a policy, said insurance agent filling out date of said application blank, presenting the same to insured and procuring her signature thereto, collecting the premium for said insurance policy, and acting at all times within the scope of his authority, are knowledge which by law will be imputed to the fire insurance company issuing the policy.
2. Same--Estoppel of Insurer.
Where a soliciting agent of a fire insurance company is fully informed of the status of title to lots upon which the property to be insured stands, and in the usual course of his duties as such agent prepares an application for a policy of insurance upon such property in the name of the wife, the record title there to being in the husband, the said property being the homestead of the insured and her husband, and the agent of the insurance company being fully informed of all these facts prior to and at the time of the taking of the application, held, that the insurance company is estopped to defend, in an action on the policy, on the ground that said application, in stating that the title to said property was in the wife, contained a material misrepresentation.
3. Insurance -- Insurable Interest -- Homestead.
Where the record title to the homestead is in the husband, the wife residing with him and occupying the property as the homestead of them both, the wife has an insurable interest in the buildings situated thereon.
4. Insurance--Fire Insurance--Irregularities in Application--Waiver.
A fire insurance company, by retaining the unearned premium on the policy with knowledge of the irregularities and misrepresentations in the application for insurance, thereby waived such irregularities and misrepresentations.
5. Same--Notice of Loss--Waiver.
Insured property having been destroyed by fire, and the company receiving notice thereof by telegram from the insured the same day the fire occurred and promptly sending its agents to investigate the extent of the loss and such agents performing that duty, held, the company thereby waived notice of loss required under the terms of said policy.
6. Same--Proofs of Loss--Waiver.
Where the insured property was destroyed by fire, the company being notified thereof by the insured on the day the fire occurred, and within three days thereafter sending its agents to investigate the extent of the loss and the circumstances thereof, the insured notifying the company by letter within three days after such fire that the property was "a total loss," "cause unknown," giving the number of the policy, and thereafter the agents of said company, after investigating the circumstances of the fire and the extent of loss, reported the same to the company, and the said company agrees with the insured as to the amount of loss under the policy, and makes no objection to the sufficiency of the proofs of loss so rendered by the insured, but retains the statements and agreements so furnished without objection until after the 60-day limitation for filing proofs of loss as provided in the policy has expired, no demand for additional proof of loss having been made by said company--held, that the company waived the proof of loss requirement in the policy notwithstanding the execution of the general nonwaiver agreement.
7. Witnesses--Competency--Husband Acting as Agent for Wife.
Where the record shows that the husband was acting for the wife's best interest and for the protection of her interest in the homestead, and, with knowledge of his acts in her behalf, the wife ratifies the same and accepts the benefits thereof, the trial court properly held that the husband was acting as agent for the wife in such transaction, and he was competent to testify in regard thereto.
8. Insurance--Fire Insurance--Description of Property--Reformation.
Where the proof shows conclusively that there was a mutual mistake of fact, in that the insurance policy sued on contained a misdescription of the insured property by giving its location on block 5, while in truth and in fact it was situated on block 51, the court committed no error in reforming the policy to express the real intention of the parties.
9. Action--Joinder of Actions.
Where the proof conclusively shows a mutual mistake of fact regarding the description of the block upon which the insured property stands, the cause of action for reformation of said policy was properly joined with an action to recover the amount due under the terms of said policy; the property mentioned having been totally destroyed by fire.
10. Insurance--Fire Insurance--Provisions of Policy--Waiver.
Where the insurance company sends its agent or agents to investigate the circumstances and extent of loss by fire under their policy of insurance, and such agent or agents enter into a nonwaiver agreement with the insured before entering upon the discharge of their duties, held, that the actions and conduct of such agent or agents while acting under the authority of the nonwaiver agreement do not constitute a waiver of a compliance with the requirements of the insurance policy on the part of the insured.
Error from District Court, Alfalfa County; Jas. B. Cullison, Judge.
Action by M. O. Green against State Mutual Insurance Company. Judgment for the plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.
Parker & Simons, for plaintiff in error
Geo. W. Partridge, for defendant in error
¶1 This is an action on a fire insurance policy commenced in the court below by the defendant in error, M. O. Green, hereinafter referred to as plaintiff, against plaintiff in error, State Mutual Insurance Company, a corporation, hereinafter referred to as defendant, according to their respective positions in the trial court.
¶2 In the month of February, 1911, the plaintiff and her husband, Antonio Green, were occupying as a home a dwelling house situated upon lots 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in block 51 in the town of Jet, Alfalfa county, Okla. On or about the 25th day of February of said year one L. F. Labrue, a soliciting agent for the defendant insurance company, came to the home of the plaintiff and made inquiries as to whether or not said property was insured against fire. After conversation with the husband of the plaintiff it developed that a policy of insurance upon the property had recently expired, and that there was none covering the property at that time. The said Labrue then solicited the plaintiff's husband to take out a policy in the company which he was representing, and after some further conversation between the husband and the said agent it was agreed that the property should be insured with the State Mutual Insurance Company. Thereupon the plaintiff's husband, Antonio Green, informed the said agent that the record title to the property about to be insured was in him, but he asked the agent, "Why cannot I have this policy made to my wife?" "Why," he (the agent) says, "You can." Plaintiff's husband then stated to the said agent, and he (Labrue) said, "It doesn't make one bit of difference." The record then shows that the insurance agent proceeded to prepare the application for a policy of fire insurance on the property above described, filling in the answers to questions therein contained, and presenting the same to the plaintiff, Mrs. Green, for her signature. Antonio Green then called in his wife, the plaintiff, and her signature was affixed to the application for insurance. The agent then collected from Antonio Green the premium on the policy applied for, amounting to $ 15 in cash and his note for $ 25 due August 1, 1911. In due time the policy here sued on was issued, by the terms of which the defendant insured the house and its contents against loss by fire or lightning for the term of five years commencing February 25, 1911. Thereafter, on July 4, 1911, the insured property was totally destroyed by fire, of which fact the defendant was notified by telegram from the insured on the day the fire occurred. The following letter was also mailed to the defendant company on the day of the fire and duly received by them, reading as follows:
¶3 Three days later one E. E. Flounders appeared at the scene of the fire, "having been detailed by said insurance company as its special agent to investigate the facts and circumstances of said claim loss and the amount thereof and report the same to the company's general officers for their action thereon." We quote from the nonwaiver agreement signed by the insured and the defendant insurance company by W. H. Sweatt, who was secretary of said company at that time. The said nonwaiver agreement further provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Howrey v. Star Insurance Company of America
... ... 275 S.W. 519; 14 R. C. L. 1325; 26 C. J. 184. Swinney v ... Fire Ins. Company (Mo.) 8 S.W.2d 1090; Wright v ... Insurance Company (Mo.) ... be waived. LeBlanc v. Standard Ins. Co., 95 A. 284; ... State Ins. Ass'n v. Lind, 172 N.E. 361; ... Vanderlilt v. Ins. Co. 176 N.W ... Co. v. Globe Ins. Co. 229 F. 326; State Ins. Co. v ... Green, 166 P. 105; Midland Motor Co. v. Ins ... Co., 234 P. 482 ... Co., 151 N.C. 35, 65 S.E. 605; Bremen Farmers' ... Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ingman et al, 122 Kan. 736, 253 P. 433; ... British ... ...
-
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Clark
... ... 1325; 26 C. J ... 296-298, and, were the question a new one in this case and in ... this state, we would so hold, not only upon principles of the ... common law, but upon what we [154 Miss ... cite the later case from the same court, State Mut. Ins ... Co. v. Green, 62 Okla. 214, 166 P. 105, L.R.A ... 1917F 663, a case strikingly ... ...
-
Nat'l Aid Life Ass'n v. Clinton
...Life Ins. Co. v. Sullivan, 172 Okla. 595, 52 P.2d 28; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Case, 167 Okla. 119, 28 P.2d 571; State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Green, 62 Okla. 214, 166 P. 105; Federal Life Ins. Co. v, Whitehead, 73 Okla. 71, 174 P. 784; Knights & Ladies of Security v. Bell, 93 Okla. 272, 220 ......
-
Okla. Natural Gas Co. v. Crenshaw
... ... Life Ins. Co. v. Williamson, Halsell-Frasier Co., 37 Okla. 213, 131 P. 691; ... 631; Lowman v. Blaine County Bank, 40 Okla. 519, 139 P. 952; State Nat. Bank v. Scales, 60 Okla. 225, 159 P. 925; Armstrong, Byrd & Co. v ... Cobb, 52 Okla. 581, 153 P. 138; State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Green, 62 Okla. 214, 166 P. 105; Calloway & Son v. Wrench, 73 ... ...