*1 885 appear will on trial of course partner facts What liquidation of until continues opinion only shows according the we do not know. disbursal ship assets and sufficiently alleges complaint appellants’ agreement.13 partnership legal grounds for relief. respond- may be M. R. Skelton It Judgment affirmed as to dismissal winding up or Floyd ent E. Skelton Bank in its cor Idaho First National they pur- partnership when liquidating the judgment re porate capacity; otherwise partnership interest. Spencer’s S. R. chased proceed and remanded further versed may on be- so, have acted If the Skeltons according expressed. ings to views herein legal partnership itself which half of appellants. pur- Costs to contemplation be the actual chaser, partner would and service on one TAYLOR, J., SMITH, McFAD- C. partnership. bind SPEAR, JJ., DEN and concur. First National Respondent Idaho appellants do Bank further contends
plead grounds to col sufficient sustain a probate attack on the court’s order
lateral Spencer’s
confirming
partner
R.
sale of S.
may
ship
probate
A
court
interest.
order
bilities M. R. Skelton owed respondent Skelton,16 Floyd appel E. plead
lants’ claims of willful non-disclosure
extrinsic fraud.17
Turner, supra,
14;
(1931);
Brooks,
n.
cf.
15.
v.
Swinehart
Malden Trust Co. v.
628,
Smutny Noble,
273,
P.2d
(1935);
v.
Idaho
78
308
N.E.
291 Mass.
100
197
(1957); Gregory
Hancock,
(Ky.
Campbell,
81
591
v.
Curtis v.
See also 475. Martin filed a claim for Board, joining
with the Industrial Accident In- employer as the surety Company surance for Woods. *3 Argonaut The Board Insurance dismissed Company proceeding and an from appeal cul- order this court from that the Board’s minated in affirmance of Argonaut’s the issue on fusal decide liability to Martin v. Robert Woods. See: Co., 105, 408 W. Lumber 90 Idaho Woods P.2d previously
This actiоn was also before Argonaut Insur Martin v. court. 475 (1965), ance judgment it did of the trial court jurisdiction the then not have because of proceedings pending before the Industrial and the cause Accident Board was reversed proceedings. for further remanded remand, After the trial court entered fact, law findings of conclusions of its decree, part: reads in its which decree AD- ORDERED “IT IS HEREBY AND That DECREED JUDGED herein, Insurance defendant was, May, day Company, 1st said throughout the whole of particularly at the time of day, and Moffatt, Blanton, Thomas, & Barrett Martin, plaintiff, Richard injury Boise, appellant. Surety and Compensation the Workmen’s Woods, plaintiff, R. W. carrier Cogswell, Sandpoint, Bandelin for re- & Lumber doing the Woods business as spondent, R. W. Woods. adjudged Company, further ordered Bistline, respond- Stephen Sandpoint, for es- is decreed that said defendant ent, Riсhard Martin. liability plaintiff deny to the topped suretjq at the time Woods as McFADDEN, Justice. Martin, and, jury plaintiff, declaratory judgment was instituted proceedings pending still before those Woods, by Richard Martin and Robert W. the State Board Industrial Accident doing Lumber latter business Idaho, defendant, Argonaut Woods In- Company, against defendant-appellant Ar- fully Company, liable to surance gonaut foreign Company, Woods, Insurance cor- lia- plaintiff pay all of that poration plaintiff in Idaho. bility authorized to business to the do has attached which initially Other named acci- defendants reason of the industrial Woods subsequently day May, Mar- action were dismissed. the 1st dent which on Martin, tin, plaintiff, employed while Woods Woods occurred River, operated being then and there Company Lumber sawmill mill on Pack A.M., seriously injured May plaintiff at 11:20 Woods.” resрondent Company, also awarded issued-.a trial. Woods the sum of- Five countersigned Thousand Dollars by Wilma Mae McArthur for attorney’s reasonable fees. period May 1, * * May 1, 1961,“12:01 standard time appeal judgment is taken from the .This At issued, time this and decree so entered. paid required deposit premium. Under Respondent operated a lumber policy, the terms monthly payroll of this mill a Sandpoint, few miles from Idaho. reports were submitted and the actual employees One of respondent Mar- premiums computed, monthly billed and tin. years, for a number of paid. Following delivery issuance and the F. G. Harrell Agency (later mentioned Mc- Woods discussed it with Agency) Sandpoint as Harrell handle *4 Arthur, stating: his insurance, compen- fire and workmen’s sation insurance employees. on his that “A He told me [L. McArthur] J. Harrell Agency (owned by LeRoy he agеnts and both were Wilma J.] [L. J. McArthur, wife, whose Mae Mc- Argonaut, questioned Wilma and I him that Arthur, agency) also worked in the renewal, was the time of because about the agent of a been, number companies, past, of insurance I was in the it had as far as including appellant. automatic, concerned, one that was and me, he said that thing that worried and During the course of Woods’ association way; that Argonaut operated the same with the Agency Harrell Mc- my deposit, put up at that time I would Arthurs, left selection of the $306, paid my premiums if I it' companies carry particular would his time, properly reports máde out the policies agency. with this Most of reason, reason there other was no transactions were with Mr. dur- McArthur because, it, Argonaut renew wouldn’t ing his lifetime. the past. as it had been in So I was sat- Appellant Argonаut Company, Insurance said, buy right, I ‘all I will isfied, and having . Park, its home office in Menlo Argonaut Insurance.’ California, and its Idaho district office at Q you agree deposit Did to make the 'Boise, appointed Agency the Harrell as its premiums premiums? and make representative 'sole Sandpoint. By the agency every made, pre- I agreement, A It was and made 1, 1958, executed March appellant appointed payment. mium Agency Harrell solicit, to accept receive and Q your agreement And that was under applications for insurance and to receive Roy with ? and remit By on its behalf. right. A That ' addendum to agreement, provisions Q agreement And these agency of agreement applic- were made they been. just renewals were like had able to compensation workmen’s insurance. They— Although the аppellant named “F. Har- G. L. McArthur and rell Agency” agents J. appointed appellant. and certified as agency agreement, Wilma Mae McArthur being both with A [*] Well, simple Argonaut it is true. [*] reason, [*] once that with I before,, questioned him [*] [*] Liberty I will [*] this,
For a years number of prior admit that since I to then heard L. have McArthur they has obtained it isn’t the call company, same but workmen’s com- J. pensation Woods, insurance Argonaut, Liberty again; with the it and with policies being placed in that it companies various that I wanted assured appellant. other than way, got I be the same because McArthur placed keep Woods’ much track in- too. to do to have Argonaut surance these, with all like renewal Insurance me, always Department been Insurance this state. No when constructive notice to Woods arose from automatic.” filing Department Insur pre- reflects that exhibits Examination n & ance. Tuсker v. America Aviation there, change viously was a when Tenn. 278 S.W.2d Gen. Ins. company to an- carrier from one surance can (1955). No actual notice of such other, changes in each instance were these cellation of or termination of time any period of accomplished without agency the Mc was submitted either by one not covered Woods was Woods, Arthurs or other. or the Woods. first of this Following issuance Following Mr. and Mrs. termination, policy identical by Argonaut, another certain McArthur to contact went to Seattle a “re first, designation except for its try place insurance brokers to period of for the policy,” issued newal policies, they had and other insurance writ- m. May 1, 12:01 a. “May 1, 1961 * * *.” there, LeRoy died ten. McArthur While issued policy was J. March being made application formal without being rеquest any particular McArthur had Woods knew Mr. *5 by Appellant’s McArthur. made away. stated, however, passed He he that that Manager in substance District testified any did not receive that Mrs. Mc- word auto company, within the renewals work authority Arthur’s had been cancelled. He for matically, procedures involved that stated: put effect without renewal of a are in death, Roy’s did “Q In connection with any action affirmative make inquiries to you any doubts or have that agent; insured he testified or of any insurance? about policies are eighty per cent about of the McArthur testified renewed. Wilma Mae suppose, about Well, surely. I A agents that she and her were not husband in see Roy’s I death, went month after any compensation ap carrier than insurance, other I my regard Wilma pellant May during period 1960 to pur- I have рolicies that have several 1, 1962, May and that Woods’ more of through them. It was chased appellant sig came to them conversation, her. but I did ask casual that in in nature her. She stated some * * * * * * policies prior stances renewal received were Agent was A me that she And she told date, expiration expiration a few on the Agent for she right, in her and was own date, expiration and even after some com- Argonaut and various previous policy. date of the going to con- panies, and that she was During throughout various times the life if her And I asked tinue the business. original and the renewal and she going to be as usual things was safety engineer appellant in- they be. It would me that would assured spected Reports lumber mill. Woods’ Roy had been go along just like when inspections these main were sent going Agent. She was was alive. She inspection office. The final made was my business, and when to run the February report in that it was and they up, be renewed.” come newals stated, “Mr. was that re- advised testimony Mc- is rebutted Mrs. engineering turn calls to his sawmill would testimony, she stated Arthur’s wherein be made on a scheduled basis.” having remember a conversation she didn’t 1, 1962, concerning March On dis with Mr. this issue. Shé manager trict ap they might told the talked about other thought McArthurs that they pellant insurance, “positive” terminating agency. their No but that she was tice of such termination was filed with didn’t talk about workmen’s Agency The trial resolved this of Harrell insurance. is of no Even moment. agency though conflict in L. Woods’ favor when found: McArthur ter J. “ death, * * * his minated Mrs. McArthur McArthur, Wilma Mae after kept operating, fact the business con McArthur, specifically the- of L. death J. tinued to act as for other insurance plaintiff, Wоods, informed the Robert W. companies which had issued her certificates Argonaut through she as appointment were Agency going G. Harrell F. terminated. in business, continue that policies plaintiff theretofore sold to Robert W. challenge finding of Appellants they up Woods would be renewed as came fact which states: No. for renewal.” agency “Although there a written death, Mrs. Subsequent her husband’s the defendant agreement between and remit plaintiff, continued to collect Sandpoint agents, McArthur neither its reports appellant. employer, Other nor Robert W. place following death Martin, employee, events that took plaintiff Richard 1, 1962, injury May Martin’s any knowledge whatever as receipt by appellant May its about thereof; charge- either terms nor were Finally Boise claim. office of Martin’s there a writ- knowing able 1962, following reports, July, final audit of anything agreement; ten was there nor adjustment of forwarded plain- either putting whatever deposit premium Agency. to the Harrell whereby both notice either or tiffs on required make would have been ap presented issue The ultimate agency quiry as to the terms of erred in peal the trial court is whether writing agreement, whether in or not Argonaut was determination *6 writing.” the time carrier at compensation Woods’ plaintiff to It is first be observed that 1, par May 1962. In injury on Martin’s no the Martin had contact whatever with the by appellant that ticular it is asserted with McArthurs. first contact Woods’ Mc holding that the trial erred insurance, policy of was when a agents, cloth Arthurs, appellant’s were as signed by McArthur resi- Mae as Wilma authority agree with Woods ed with to agent, dent At was delivered to him. cоmpensation his workmen’s relationship agency time the itself automatically would be renewed brought policy possession. liability into deny to estopped its is to upon When L. McArthur called the individual Woods Woods. Consideration of J. inquired delivery after by appellant’s assignments issues presented carrying change company findings of the specific by of error directed to to.the insurance, he necessary trial resolve court becomes duly appointed agent speaking was to the ultimate issue. Argonaut company. was Woods Appellant erred claims fully accepting agent’s justified finding that L. McArthur and Wilma J. inquiry. Apropos statement without further legal Mae McArthur did business under the in Mas- this situation is the statement firm name find Agency. of Harrell E. Bonding Co. sachusetts & Ins. v. R. ing evidentiary is correct an stand 268, F.2d Parsons Elec. point. Since each of held a the McArthurs 1932): (8th A.L.R. Cir. appointment authority certificate of authority discussing “In agent by performed individual name and Insurance, agent, Cooley’s Briefs on capacity, services in such Mrs. McArthur 2d ed.], states as follows: [463 countersigning pol and renewal s may by appellant Woods, powers icie ‘Though agent issued of an by they fact that did under name business be limited definite restrictions applicable. of his as that section read in authority by the nature 1960 are powers Supple- See: agency, the determination of his Vol. 7 Cumulative Pocket Code, the in- consequently rights ment Idaho 1959. See also: S.L. (Compare first instance Ch. 330 I.C. must rest in the Sec. sured 41-337, powers Huppert v. general principle that the cited in on the §§ 41— Wolford, agent prima supra.) any of an facie coextensive Absent facts to are care, put inquiry, with the business intrusted tо his Woods he was under duty by inquire further as McArthur’s will not be narrowed limitations authority. by person finding not trial court communicated to the with any question is neither Martin nor whom deals. The real he has, power agent knowledge of the what but what terms of the written power agency agreement they has held him out and that ” chargeable knowledge having.’ of such agreement, as well as the determination that Huppert Wolford, there nothing put them on notice to held, (1966), this court based inquiry fully by make further sustained 41-337, I.C. that an insurer’s resident the evidence. It follows that McArthur agent empowered applica- who was to take as the agent resident had author- tions, countersign policies, and deliver col- ity to bind agree- lect and remit and make out ment. reports accident and transmit claims was Appellant any contends that apparent authority clothed with to bind McArthur have had L. J. parol aon contract of insurance. agree a renewal of opinion, In the the court stated: express provision limited “Thus the judge conclusion of the trial delivered Wolford as resident for West- prior McArthur to his discussion with ern powers with the various hereinbefore policy provision about renewal. enumerated, thereby clothed with to, ferred reads: apparent authority to bind Western on any agent or Changes Notice parol contract of insurance is correct. knowledge possessed any agent or course, Of if Vloedman had been ad- person other shall not waiver effect vised that acting Wolford was outside *7 change any part or a of this implied authority actual or agent asserting estop Company from Western, or should that fact have аny right policy; under the terms this of apparent been reasonably prudent a to policy be nor shall the terms of this man circumstances, under the then no changed, except by endorse- waived or liability could have been incurred for a of ment issued to form However, Western. the trial court deter- Secretary signed by President and mined, finding supported by and such is the Company.” of competent evidence, that did Wolford provision not inform It be that this Vloedman he lacked will first noted authority provide specifically purport to does not to affect immediate coverage truck, authority agent no the an logging of of agree policy. contention is made to to a of the In that Vloedman should 26:205, have known 4 at 62 Wolford lacked Couch on Insurance 2d such author- § ity.” (1960), it 420 P.2d at is stated: 18.
By appellant’s foreign agent “A a answer it admitted of is resident statute, who, by has foreign company, is a corporation author- surance company ized authority represent to do ‘to business in This this state. true, being provisions purposes,’ power to all intents and has of I.C. 41-901 §
892 policy, notwithstanding ly and relied
renew a fire
cited
Missouri
Ferguson
Co.,
provision
supra,
v.
Ins.
orginal policy
which
cases
Home
Co.,
and Prichard v. Connecticut
(Emphasis
such statute.”
Ins.
Fire
conflicts
added.)
supra,
authorities,
pointing
well
later
similarity
out the
of the Missouri statute
foregoing
principal
The
case cited for
Wolford,
Huppert
and I.C. 41-337. In
v.
quotation
v. Northwestern
is Anderson
supra,
pointed
this court
out
Co.,
201
51 N.D.
Fire & Marine Ins.
legislative purpose
41-337,
is
I.C. §
held that
it
(1924),
514
where was
N.W.
protect
public
members
who
defining the
the North Dakota statute
agents
only
deal
with local
an
from absence
authority
agents
countersigning
resident
authоrity
of actual
agents
in such
to act
contrary.
policy .stipulations
controls
companies.
on behalf of their
also:
See
petition for
discussing
In
the insurer’s
America, 53
Bales v. General Ins. Co. of
pointed
that the
rehearing,
out
Appleman,
24
North
Missouri statute
unlike that of
Insurance
Practice
Law &
Dakota, stating:
policy provision
was ineffective to
Missouri,
express
“In
there is no
authority
agree
limit McArthur’s
holding
like
statute
section 4959.
a renewal.
court,
therefore,
Prichard
foregoing
be
discussion
not to
is
Co.,
Fire
v.
Ins.
Connecticut
[Prichard
foreign
considered
that a
as determination
(Mo.App.1918)]
and other
S.W.
apparent
not
author-
limit
cases,
analogous
is based on section
ity
countersigning
resident
local
.6315,
6315],
supra [R.S.1919, Section
agent by policy provision,
because in
that,
theory
on the
inasmuch as the
only considering
case we are
whether the
absolutely prohibited
from
general
above-quoted
non-waiver condition
transacting
state, except
business in
alone can
be effective
divest
through
agent,
agent
an
must
to enter into
local
company’s
ego.
held
be the
alter
In
agreement
renewal of
an automatic
state,
Legislature
expressly
our
policy.
said,
leaving
merely
in section
implication,
persons
in this
express
Even in the absence of an
doing
state
certain
acts
behalf of
agreement
between
local
and the
foreign
companies
shall be their
insured,
a course of conduct
the insurer
agents to all
purposes.” 201
intents and
policies
automatically renews
over
N.W.
period
years may require
an actual
notice
intent
insured
making
the analogy to the law of Mis
Reсognizing
general principle,
renew.
souri,
quoted
the North
Dakota
see,
Vincent,
e.g.: Farmers
Exch.
Ins.
v.
Ferguson
Mo.App.
v. Home Ins.
;
Cal.Rptr.
(Cal.App.1967)
American
(1921),
89a year was this now? “Q What provisions policy the that in a To effect authority agent, and limiting out, an the and Roy came And “A 1962. expressly the providing that care taken had been me that it he told premiums authority accept renewal I had right then that told him of. I extensions, or grant waived be or I had insurance whether to know insured, by the see: they modified conduct of cancellations, not; when these that City Kansas Life Ins. Hinkson v. own, didn’t my I that no fault of overruled on (1919), Or. P. 24 necessary, agreed and he they were think grounds. other time, assured that he And it. paid my premiums kept long me as I It is there was no error our conclusion in, deposit that concluding kept my premium and the on of the trial court about, I that worry nothing ap- I authority had McArthur the to bind had led to insured, that and I was be pellant agreement would to the renewal notwith- standing general policy believe— non-waiver
provision quoted supra. “ s}c ifc % ** specifically “A *. He told me early trial court found that that, kept premium payments if I Mаy 1960, agreement these entered into an was there, deposit paid, my and I had acting appellant between and Woods renewed, would I that and through agents that it its if would Woods knew Agent In- him be deposit required make an pay advance and Company, premiums compen- surance I so was sure time it meant.” automatically. was what sation would be renewed court agreement also concluded policy the initial of insurance After May by appellant entered into 1, 1960, May issued, year May for the through agents legally binding policy, countersigned as the renewal company, agreement being within by McArthur, de- Mae before Wilma apparent authority made any application being livered without Sandpoint agents. aspect On Mc- policy. for the prin- case is to be recalled that appellant, acting Arthur, cipal concern of time Woods at chang- appellant at the time behalf of he his meeting with subsequent McArthur policy prior ed from the delivery policy was whether appellant, was ac- change and before this he would at all times be covered work- cepted Woods, agreed men’s insurance. By mak- automatically be renewed. within agreement acting he was ing such During original life agree- authority, scope of renewal, had notified effective then. ment of intention to cancel the non-payment of premiums. Woods the trial Appellant however contends McArthur, discussed this with Mr. since finding had erred in that Woods previously Woods had paid every Wilma McArthur reason to believe M. then due Harrell Agency. McArthur con agent for continued as already assured the problem Woods that tinued the businеss under the name been taken of. care About month before Agency, style and further of Harrell death, McArthur’s another notice M. finding that erred in Wilma came; tended cancellation Woods testi- they policies as all McArthur could renew fied as -to that occurrence as follows: reflects up for The record came renewal. *9 “A the I one got the in Boise between meeting around 1st of Febru- after ary. exactly when, I mana appellant’s don’t recall district but and McArthurs it just just 1, 1962, before no notice of termina inspec- ger or after on March tion, was, Agency agreement, or and it oh— tion of Harrell only of and of the termination or M. at most would have been cumula- L. Wilma J. ap- certificates of
McArthur’s individual
tive. Exhibit “I” consisted of certified
pointment
copies
probate
proceedings
to
ever submitted
truе
of
The record
that after
in
Woods.
shows
Mr.
The trial
McArthur’s estate.
death, Wilma
McArthur
exhibit
McArthur’s
refused admission of the
M.
offered
accept premium payments
being
continued
and
as
no error
to
immaterial. We find
payroll reports
appellant
ruling,
the trial
behalf of
court’s
inasmuch
action,
party to
submit
them to its
office. More-
estate was not a
Boise
over,
automatically
agreement
to
renew admission
the exhibit would not
prior
prove
policy
disprove any
then
was entered into
to
tended to
or
issues
1, 1962,
prior
March
McArthur’s
L.
before
court.
J.
agreement
being
death. Such
within
duty
Appellant
asserts
there was no
agent’s authority,
such au-
termination of
notify
on its
that it was
thority
affect
agreement,
could not
going
compensation
renew
workmen’s
least
absence of
ac-
notice to
policy had
original
inasmuch as the
tual or constructive.
date,
specific
termination
did the sec-
policy
the first
ond
issued as
renewal of
Appellant assigns
the ad
error to
assertion, however,
policy. This
over-
mission in evidence of
be
conversations
presented by
record.
looks
facts
this
McArthur,
decedent,
tween the
L.
J.
primarily
concerned with
respondent
Appellant
Woods.
asserts that
continual
cover-
respondent
testimony
such
Woods con
age, and
his
carrier was
when
hearsay
stitutes
evidence and was inad
changed
this
appellant,
Woods discussed
objection.
missible over its
It
our con
appellant’s
agent.
with
local
The local
clusion that the trial court did not err in
advised Woods
renewals of
admitting
testimony
evidence.
into
appellant
with
automatic
would be
Woods testified as to certain conversa
conformity
payments
if all
made.
were
tions he had with
testi
McArthur.
by appellant’s agent, the
with this statement
mony thus
was submitted for the
offered
ap-
came to Woods
purpose
establishing
that McArthur did
plication
being submitted
him for
statements,
make
fact
not to es
manager
Appellant’s
renewal.
district
testi-
veracity
tablish the
of the statements made.
per
eighty
pol-
fied
about
cent of the
Bennett,
294,
See: Bumb
51 Cal.2d
v.
automatically
cies are
The man-
renewed.
Turnham,
P.2d
(1958); Granberg
v.
ager
had
also testified that determination
Cal.App.2d
(1958).
was without to allow and deter matically policy. year will renew the In attorneys’ mine this In fees before court. the principal During year two does two so. case, judgment the Molstead for the after the principal agency. the The revokes insured was the trial court entered entered, principal the does not renew insured’s requiring order an insurance year Year three commences respondent threе. pay “to as a $300 an accident that would have been attorney’s prevail reasonable fee should she covered had the been renewed. appeal.” The factual situation judgment is different. here After question raised is whether first entered for the insurance independent authority agent apparent had company, appealed successfully, principals to bind one of his to renew court, the cause remanded the trial perpetuity, principal’s without subsequently judgment entered knowledge or consent. assessing attorney’s Woods. under fees general proposition, agency As an the statute the court considered the addi arrangement a mutual and its duration taking tional work initial involved in only (or lasts principal agent) until appeal, proper. which was We find no er it; rightful agent’s powеr revokes regard. ror in judgment represent principal then Because ends.1 Respondent timely principal power has to terminate sought by attorney agency his relationship prior motion fees for to commencement appeal. protection period, It is our that this policy’s conclusion of the renewal granted motion should he and that five reasonably an insured could not assume hundred independent agent authority dollars is reasonable sum to be to bind (Second) Agency p. (1936) ; Agency § See Restatement § Am.Jur. (Horn Seavey, Agency 1964); Agency book ed. C.J.S. legal majority opinion gives independ- principal relations
forever power period.2 perpetu- No ent resident begin until to bind in future companies ity principal reasoning one of contained abandoning majority opinion legal bеgin warrants relations which until do principle agency a reason a time when the have lost basic law ap represent power princi- revocation able man test determines extent liability, pal. escape potential parent authority.3 To *13 majority require principal majority in on decision rests notify every the revocation insured Huppert P.2d Wolford, v. Idaho agent. policy placed by whose has been decision, however, only (1966). That by presented No reasoning or “ general ‘engag- that a holds resident majority grave compels this result —a * * * soliciting, writing selling, ed departure principles basic the law life, health, casualty, delivering accident agency. Thus, I dissent. ” companies fire insurance for’ several apparent authority agency while his principal com- continues bind one of his
panies public liability for a insur- Huppert a logging
ance on truck. v. only types
Wolford thus concerns may risk for which current bind principal coverage. for immediate MEREDITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, H. Clair stat- part on relies v. majority also requiring out-of-state provisions MEREDITH, utory Marilyn Defendant- D. Respondent. con- agents through Idaho to act insurers However, I.C. No. here. cerning insured risks 41-337,4 41-901 to I.C. similar § Supreme of Idaho. Court controlling insurance statute 22, 1967. Nov. 1960, demands companies in out-of-state or only that an out-of-state risks protecting agent when a resident use way purports in no The statute in Idaho. govern- principles change traditional scope relationship, agency ing the authority. agent’s apparent anof Vallier, 181, 266 agents 2. Cf. Whalen through li- insurance resident code, P. 1089 provided in this who shall censed countersign indemnity policies con- or all Jungert, 90 Idaho Clements v.
3. See keep issued, shall tracts so who (Sec- Restatement 408 ond), Agency same, containing usual record (c) 49(a) and comment concerning customary information to § 8. paid premium the full risk undertaken and countersig- agent, paid therefor, 4. “41-337. Resident that the to be to the end or Except provided may required nature sec- law. — state receive taxes 41-338, paid tion make, write, place authorized insurer shall to be collected law made, undertakings property or cause to be lo- or any policy placed, (2) or or contract written or cated in this state. When two indemnity any single policy kind or of insurance or more insurers issue a general character, floating countersigned or or surance the be covering property appearing risks on located on by thereon behalf of all insurers Idaho, liability accruing state, agent, un- created a licensed resident in this state, der the laws of ings or undertak- one such insurer.” performed except state,