White v. Connecticut Fire Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1876
• Citation: 120 Mass. 330
• Parties: George W. White v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

120 Mass. 330

George W. White v. Connecticut Fire Insurance Company

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

May 6, 1876

Suffolk Contract upon a policy of insurance against fire. At the trial in the Superior Court, Pitman, J., by agreement of the parties, after verdict for the plaintiff, reported the case to this court, the verdict to stand, if upon the evidence reported the jury would be authorized to return such verdict; otherwise, judgment for the defendant. The evidence sufficiently appears in the opinion.

Judgment on the verdict.

S Hoar, for the defendant.

A Wellington, for the plaintiff.

Colt J. Devens & Lord, JJ., absent.

OPINION

Colt, J.

The policy in this case was obtained for the plaintiff by Hunt, an insurance broker, through the defendant's general agent, Darling. It contained provisions, among others: 1st. That the company should not be liable by virtue of the policy until the premium therefor was actually paid. 2d. That the insurance might be terminated by the company on notice to that effect, and on refunding a ratable proportion of the premium for the unexpired term of the policy. 3d. That any person who had procured the insurance, other than the assured, should be deemed to be the agent of the assured, and not of the company, "in any transaction relating to this insurance;" and 4th. That nothing less than a distinct agreement, indorsed on the policy, should be construed as a waiver of any restriction or condition contained in it.

The defence is that there had been no actual payment of the premium, made necessary by the terms of the policy as a condition precedent to its validity; and that the risk was terminated before the fire by notice from the company.

The defendant offered no evidence, and the only question is whether the plaintiff's evidence, as reported, would justify a jury in finding a verdict in the plaintiff's favor. If so, as agreed at the trial, judgment must be entered for him.

We are of opinion that there is evidence derived from the relations of the several parties, the transactions between them, the course of business and the delivery of the policy, which would justify a finding that the company accepted the credit given to the broker, Hunt, individually, as a payment of the premium, within the meaning of the terms of the policy. It was according to their course of business for the general agent of the company to deliver policies to Hunt without requiring cash payment of premiums. Instead of that, he charged Hunt in account individually, and rendered to him monthly bills, deducting an agreed commission allowed him for obtaining risks for this company. The policy in this case was so delivered, without demand for payment of money. A large number of the defendant's policies containing these same clauses had, with the defendant's knowledge, been issued by Darling to insurance brokers in the same way, without objection on the...