Teutonia Ins. Co. v. Howell

• Decision Date: 12 January 1900
• Parties: TEUTONIA INS. CO. v. HOWELL. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

54 S.W. 852

TEUTONIA INS. CO. v. HOWELL. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 12, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Warren county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by F. J. Howell against the Teutonia Insurance Company on a policy of fire insurance. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Strother & Gordon, for appellant.

John M Wilkins and Edward W. Hines, for appellee.

HOBSON J.

Appellant issued to appellee a policy of insurance, insuring his dwelling house at $1,000, and the personal property therein at $200, for three years from October 9, 1897. On October 19 1897, the house and contents were destroyed by fire, and this action was brought to recover the $1,000 insurance on the house. No claim was made for the personal property destroyed as that did not belong to appellee. Appellant relied upon the following defenses to a recovery: (1) The policy, being void as to the personal property, because it did not belong to appellee, was void in toto; (2) there was a lien on the property which had not been released; (3) appellee falsely and fraudulently overvalued the property.

It appears from the evidence that Sam Clark was the agent of appellant at Bowling Green; that he employed William G. Lyons to solicit insurance for him and take applications; that Lyons inspected the property in contest, valued it, took the application, returned it to Clark, and explained to Clark the nature of the risk; that thereupon Clark issued the policy and delivered it to appellee by the hand of another. It also appears that Clark had no authority from the company to appoint a subagent, and it is insisted that the knowledge of Lyons is not to be imputed to the company. But it has been held by this court in a number of cases, on facts substantially the same as in this, that the knowledge of the agent who takes the application is the knowledge of the company, and that it cannot avoid the policy on account of any matters that were known to him at the time. Insurance Co. v. Gerteisen (Ky.) 51 S.W. 617, and cases cited. Lyons not only saw the property and examined it, but was told that the title to the personal property was in appellee's son, and knew as much about the value of the house as appellee. Appellant therefore cannot avoid the policy on the ground that the title to the personal property was not in appellee, or that the house was overvalued; the proof showing no fraud on the part...