*2 WRIGHT, Before TAMM and ROB- INSON, Judges. Circuit TAMM, Judge: Circuit This is from an en- order July 1, 1969, by tered on the United States District Court for the District of granting judgment in Columbia favor defendant, Insurance Company.1 pur- The order was entered judge’s suant to the trial find- written ings of fact and of law based conclusions days trial, two affidavits and objected has not briefs. Since counsel findings of fact and trial court’s find since we no error the conclusions law, we would affirm. against This is an action Aetna for recovery the funds, of insurance re- is, on in- policies prior surance cancelled to their expiration date. The are cor- engaged porations operat- primarily maintaining apartment hotels properties The vari- lease. policies ous obtained insurance covering owned through Washington Insurance (hereinafter “WIA”). Agency, Inc. action, party WIA is not a but pertinent gener- all times hereto was the Company 1. The Aetna Insurance was the herein and will hereafter be referred to policies insurer on all insurance involved either “Aetna” “the insurer.” agreements. al well as of other voice Whenever were cancelled and unearned Under them, (which assigned) had the had not been contract between binding sign funded, power insur- the amount of and issue placed entered in the ance contracts for Aetna. credit Aetna as well account. insurance with *3 companies other insurance with 10, 1966, On March Mr. Lewis Plaintiff, Woodner Jonathan served. Secretary the of Wood- Controller and “Woodner”), Company (hereinafter ner, telephoned Rosenberg Mr. plain- parent corporation other Mr. advised him that in the future a agreed in- tiffs, responsible for all to be handling all the Matarasso policies premiums issued due on regarding properties Woodner insurance. poli- plaintiffs. The Aetna to the other later, A week Mr. Matarasso visited suit is centered which this cies about WIA and discussed matter the of cancel- during period from 1963 the were issued policies. lation of current Mr. Mataras- provision to 1966 and each contained so did not informa- WIA definite prior to event cancellation tion as effective date cancella- date, paid premium expiration tion, being understood, however, unexpired term would be allocable to the get giving Matarasso wanted to binders period During the March refunded. temporary coverage insurance before the subject 10, 1966, all of June policies current were cancelled. In the cancelled, gross policies un- following weeks WIA received binders totaling $20,- thereon earned covering policies some corre- 329.57. spondence advising from Matarasso way other binders were their to WIA. exclusively had all of the WIA April 21, 1966, On WIA received a one insurance needs paragraph April 20, 1966, letter dated plaintiff in the Metro- Woodner located by Mr. written Rowen which stated: Throughout greater politan area. appointed “We have the firm of Ma- A. part relationship, of their business WIA Co., tarasso & Inc. as our insurance maintained' properties previously han- account,” “open ac- known by you.” By early June, policies dled all enlarged all count was later to include placed by had WIA for the transactions with of each of WIA had been cancelled. The full plaintiffs. other The account related amount of unearned which are purchased from various com- insurance subject of this suit had been refund- panies including The mentioned Aetna. by ed Aetna to WIA. WIA added to the following “open account” worked of its refunds the amount unearned com- paid manner. to Aetna unexpired peri- missions allocable insurance WIA od, open and credited the account with policies would be en- gross account, amount. final dat- (cid:127) open tered in the account as debits. ed June was rendered WIA Sums received on account plaintiffs, which account all shows policies were entered WIA the disbursements and all credits made policies as credits. account When connection with the cancellation through a and the bank bank financed policies. its check to to cover the sent WIA In a letter dated June miums, check went in the amount of the Mr. Rowen listed the Aetna as a Under credit. suit, subject agreements insured, which are the of this as securi- voice requested premium ty loan, assigned bank the directly thereon sent policies so fi- return on the replied plaintiffs. to Mr. Rowen up sufficient nanced to an amount 29, 1966, inform- in a dated June satisfy unpaid the in- balance seems evident that ing did not deal expected Mr. Rowen that insured, assuring directly cancel with with Aetna. Mr. turned telephone the matter had been him that Rowen’s March call to agent, Rosenberg At no time advising over to Aetna’s WIA. Mr. him that a Mr. return the plaintiffs direct handling Matarasso would all plain- properties regarding insurance, refunds to apply them to the subsequent and not tiffs conversation between Ro- senberg had never dealt account. Aetna and Matarasso at which time respect past plaintiffs in the Rosenberg poli- was told to cancel their receiving and re- for insurance orders cies as soon as received binders funding upon (Rosenberg can- 65), April Tr. and the fact, main- cellation letter written nam- Rowen account” for tained an A. Matarasso & Inc. as *4 throughout greater part of agents sureds “insurance relationship. twenty-year (emphasis business viously this [WIA]” was no added), very there Prior to June strongly indicate that WIA plaintiffs arrange from to communication to cancellation was requesting unearned be that Inasmuch as WIA was to directly plaintiffs to and not to returned cancel these it could be as- sumed, contrary WIA. in- unless there were structions, re- that the cancellation and plaintiffs’ main contentions on The funding to unearned were First, plaintiffs are twofold. past they handled as had been expressly that had termi- contend twenty years. prior to At no time June relationship more nated their with WIA anyone plaintiffs direct prior complete re- than three months premium return the unearned refunds mittance of the plaintiffs apply them to not to and pur- the insurer to WIA.2 Because were in account. Plaintiffs ported agency relationship between WIA throughout with WIA contact terminated, and the insured was in cancellations months which argue, authority had to receive no being had am- Plaintiffs effected. premium returns on June 1966. regard- ple opportunity to instruct gen- It asserted that since WIA agent Aetna, policy-writing eral forthcoming from would be knowledge termination absence In the to be cancelled. Aetna, appropriately imputable to regard plaintiffs in of directions principal. plain- mention the Before we these unearned deal di- tiffs’ second contention we will the cancellation WIA handled rectly argument. first with their handling past. All such funds as in the Although agreed plaintiffs’ quite completed prior had been longer authority in which pur WIA no to Aetna had June policies Woodner, request that initial chase insurance made their Judge however, Wright dissenting, meeting for some fifteen in the minds a years.” ' 35.) rely quite heavily (Rowen alleged seems Plaintiffs Tr. on an “dispute” open account, in to show eri'ors documents which he offered no account, though claimed claims to Rowen be of such a nature (Rowen terminating Tr. documents. fluence Woodner there such its rela- attorney agreed tionship absolutely 23.) with WIA. There is Plaintiffs’ accurately support all of no reflected evidence this claim. Mr. changed Rowen testified that Woodner 11.) (J.A. agency simply sought its Aetna. recover from “a matter of econo- “dispute” my efficiency.” (Rowen 44.) any At rate since this Tr. “dispute” determina This the District Court seems best minor. himself, 10), (J.A. how it can not see we do characterized it as “ac- tion tually dispute proceeding. any part play no in this in there had Campbell Mfg. Co., to them. Home Ins. Co. v. sent impute refund checks knowledge (4th 1935). very Cir. Thus, fact if we even recently Aetna, plaintiffs still our own District of Columbia premi- recognized asserting Appeals Court of the dual estopped from agency concept. Ainley, returned Adkins Inc. not been & have um refunds Busada, D.C.App., procedure used v. Eli 270 A.2d 135 (1970). long If course had wished to aof continuation was a adopt- concept, popular uninterrupted avoid it could custom easi- conduct and ly have created the plaintiffs. See Good- statute to read that ed WIA any policy-writing Dicker, U.S.App.D.C. shall be consid- man v. company ered the exclusive- ly. adopted type had Ohio of stat- contention second soliciting respect ute with interpretation D.C. on their is based provides life insurance provides (1967) which Code § pertinent “[A]ny part, person who solic- part: pertinent any controversy shall Any policy-writing or salaried * ** be considered the by any employee company authorized and not the bind, negotiate, solicit, company to sured.” Ohio Rev.Code 3911.22 applications write, policies or issue (1953), (Emphasis added.) signif- It is any controversy shall, be- therefor icant to that Ohio does not have note *5 representa- or his the insured tween negative separate in a this limitation company, be held and the said tive soliciting agents dealing statute company agent is- of the be the pro- non-life insurance It is policy or solicited effected or sued person vided there that who so- “[a] for, appli- anything in applied so licits shall considered as contrary policy not- to the or cation * * * of the added.) (Emphasis withstanding. * * 3929.27 Ohio Rev.Code § Any payment made or on behalf (1953). This variation in statutes any poli- insured broker of the an seems to indicate intention delivery such broker cies issued legislature expressly Ohio forbid directly to the issued insured or to the concept of dual in life insurance broker, such on the order of insured shall, possibili- transactions but leave ty between in controversies relationship for such in non-life a company, deemed sured and Furthermore, transactions. company. paid to the have been interpreted very a statute Wisconsin provision plaintiffs in the read District as similar to the of Columbia’s say policy-writing Code agent precluding acting not a from as solicitor agent only may in for the be the agent of the insured in circum- some excluding thereby any possibility surer, R. Lumber v. John Davis Co. stances. whereby agency relationship dual a Co., Hartford Fire Ins. 95 Wis. 70 in both the could an N.W. 84 Thus, sured and the insurer. significant is We believe it also say, return of payment portion italicized of D.C.Code 35- merely § is payment substantially own not to their set heretofore is 1334 forth limiting can see insured. We to an in its latitude limited “anything application no intention or this statute clause contrary notwithstanding.” concept agency policy dual to the abolish the many jurisdictions. provision prevalent The obvious insured, representa- Eagle protect Fire Co. v. Bur his American Ins. or 1952); tive, dine, print” pitfalls (10th In from the “small Cir. demnity age subject Co. v. Midwest Transfer which an earlier Ins. (7th 1950); far-reaching dissatisfaction to F.2d 633 Cir. ently Congress legislative bodies. felt that when an in courts and several any leg- being represented from sured’s interests are by unable to conclude We are choosing history recorded cases one of his own he needs or islative designed gov- only provision protection. limited this ern, WIA was Code merely vary, upon plaintiffs to, pur chosen apply “broker” or invocation, prop pattern rela- chase insurance for their various of business tionships for some erties. WIA had had existed been authorized twenty years twenty years. premi stretch An effort to collect unearned statutory plaintiffs. provision keeping into an all ums for the It concise govern- mandate account” as an meth inclusive and absolute efficient bookkeeping ing plaintiffs neither enumerated od for the situations ing nor not for neither enumerated Aetna. With the facts situations are, simply policy- simple we must consider WIA a to the absurd. writing agent pay and a “broker.” As quite act- that WIA was It is obvious pay ment to one’s insurance broker is only in a dual role insured, ment to the Mc Kaufman v. insurer, insured to the but also Laughlin Co., U.S.App.D.C. A “broker” their “broker.” (1966), on Insurance Couch field is defined D.C. in the insurance 2d 34:102 we rule that § (1967) as: Code 35-1303 properly paid by * * * [A]ny person for a who judgment and the of the District Court any acts or man- consideration aids is affirmed. negotiation in the solicitation or ner Affirmed. the assured of contracts on behalf of indemnity. insurance, surety, or WRIGHT, Judge J. SKELLY Circuit certainly requirements meets the (dissenting): purchased insur- of this definition. majority opinion indicates, As ap- only plaintiffs not ance for the *6 pellants open maintained an account companies Aetna other insurance as but Washington Agency with respect Insurance with pro- far financing so well. WIA even went to on their ar- the cure dispute A arose as to the owed amount rangements through banking institu- open appellants, WIA on the account and dealings keep these the tions. To dispute because of this as well as for compli- free from various reasons, WIA, replace other decided to single possible ran WIA a cation general agent who was also the of Aetna for the benefit of the account” Company, Insurance as their insurance plaintiffs not Aetna. by placed and cancel all insurance Congress enacted the first When WIA with Aetna insurers in paragraph to from D.C.Code we referred their behalf. WIA was advised rightfully most § orally decision on March protect insured from the wished to the by April was confirmed agent, company’s pro whose insurance replacement after binders for insurance honesty reliability pensity has to by appellants’ had been obtained new by only insurer and the evaluated agent. Appellants’ letter to WIA stat- neither hire nor whom the insured can ed: discharge. enacting feel the sub We appointed “We have the firm A. paragraph sequent 35-1334 Con § Matarasso & Inc. as our insur- gress eagerness protect to showed less pre- ance in was the insured when his own broker viously by you.” controversy, in that case volved protection in Aetna returned the offers On June the statute totaling $20,329.59 only limited sured circumstances paid money appellants’ not to to on cancelled when the insured the. agent, Appar- appellants, general requested policies. but to Aetna’s broker for forwarding WIA, Perhaps principles estoppel might instead of WIA. money Aetna, properly appellants, protect if credited it to invoked to to changed assured Aetna were cir- disputed account with the unaware of longer represented. appel But When cumstances. here WIA is Aetna’s it no agent, elementary, Aetna that return and it course lants demanded is them, majority indicates, to that in notice law principal. matter had replied that the been to the is notice Aetna agent, WIA. to Aetna’s And the circumstances of this case turned over agent in own favored its that in Thus difficult to believe fact precisely dispute1 assured *withAetna’s it was WIA’s know appel doing. protect paying returned Aetna’s its ap agent, right through WIA, rather than lants’ WIA continued pellants. payment attempt How this trial. At no time did Aetna bring liquidate party can WIA as a third defendant circumstances appellants reclaim from Aetna’s indebtedness mystery WIA the returned that to me. miums in the event the court held payment should have been made to majority we states: if “[E]ven policies. Indeed, assured on even on knowledge impute suggestion no direc- estopped would still be tion made. asserting have by Aetna, as returned to not been my judgment it is like situations procedure used a continuation present prompted one which Con long uninter- of a rupted course of conduct gress enact D.C.Code adopted custom (1967).2 cer make wanted long plaintiffs.” But course of con- possible so far as that an insurer tain uninterrupted end- custom had duct and join de could not hands to money long Aetna sent the ed rights feat the of an assured. Aetna’s WIA. At time longer appellants. respectfully no I dissent. statement, suggests majority February 1. The footnote stated on this dispute concerning account 1965? Rosenberg, $42,100.83. minor.” “seems at best president WIA, after testified Q that an accurate reflection Was crediting owing the re amounts due and Washington Company still owed turned Woodner In- *7 not, Strangely, $9,142.93. Agency? he could why to collect no action a reason A It was not. your you taken. Mr. has been Q amount Did make known dis- Woodner, secretary agreements comptroller balance due as open account: testified as forward in these carried statements you years? period us what tell Q Would over and carried over rendered A I did. appears May 31, you be? Q And to whom did make known $26,920.50. disagreement? A Taylor. Rosenberg A To Mr. and Mr. Now, accurate reflec- Q is that an Taylor? Q Who was Mr. owing tion due and amounts Taylor A Mr. one was at time Wash- Rosenberg’s associate. Agency.? ington Insurance you Q Did have a discussion with certainly is not. most A It about matter? Yes, Showing you one on more than occasion. Q Defendant’s Exhibit 7, looking statement Number majority opinion you page February 2. See 758 of the dated owing tell for text the statute. us the due balance