54 Mich. 145 | Mich. | 1884
Lead Opinion
So far as the questions raised in the record refer to the proofs of loss, and the attempt at cancellation, we
It is certainly worthy of some consideration how far those questions could be raised at all under the facts as shown by defendant. The policy in suit, if valid, covered a loss under a previous fire to the one now in question. The defendant’s agent, Mr. Stringham, examined the property and risks, and advised the company, who determined and attempted, not to repudiate the entire policy, but to cancel what was left of it; and the various notices which they gave, and the steps which they took, were inconsistent with any claim of its invalidity. If they proposed to repudiate, they could not treat it as good so far as premiums were concerned, and bad as to liability. It does not appear, but the inference is otherwise, that the first loss was treated as not binding defendant. The premium offered to be returned was only a portion of that paid for the whole period. Such a transaction would seem to be an affirmance, as far at it is significant at all; and there was never any attempt at rescission. But, as we do not know how far this matter may have been viewed below, we do not propose to do more than refer to it as an element which might have been significant if the other rulings were doubtful.
But so far as the relations of McGraw with Knaggs, Clark & Plum become important, we do not think they involved such agency as defendant claims. The testimony tended, in our opinion, to prove distinctly that as between McGraw and that firm they represented the insurers and not him. He, by his agent, applied to them for insurance, and in answer to that application obtained the insurance. He paid them all the premiums required on all the policies, and they receipted for the whole in one receipt, and without other discrimination than separating the items belonging to the several policies. He did not become responsible for their compensation. There was nothing tending to show that any one but Mr. Curtiss and
The companies always have it in their power to have everything material reduced to writing. It is contrary to general practice in other cases to have an agreement partly in writing and partly in parol. If this can lawfully be done, as perhaps it may be, it must nevertheless stand as written, unless varied by authority, and an assured party is not bound to inquire how far unauthorized persons have undertaken to represent him in matters of which he has no notice. The policy refers to property fully identified. He could not be bound to assume or imagine that anything further had been represented about it, except by his own agents, of whose acts he is bound to inform himself. No one would be safe in taking out insurance under any other rule. The insured has a right to know where he stands, and while he takes the risk of his own representatives, he cannot be subjected to those of' persons whom, he has never appointed or recognized.
The judgment must be affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting). This is an action of assumpsit brought by plaintiff to recover damages upon a policy of insurance.
On the 21st of April, 1882, the plaintiff and one Charles Wartrous were copartners, composing the firm of T. H. McGraw & Co., which firm were the owners of some eighteen million feet of pine saw-logs, then cut and skidded in Bay county, Michigan. The firm had in their employment one Charles C. Curtiss, who was the superintendent of T. H. McGraw & Co. in looking after their affairs generally, and had entire charge of their insurance business. The partners resided in the state of New York, but they had a place of business and an office at Portsmouth, in Bay county, Michigan.
About the 21st of April, 1882, Curtiss called upon Messrs. Knaggs, Clark & Plum, a firm of insurance agents in Bay City, and requested insurance for T. H. McGraw & Co. upon their saw-logs to the amount of one hundred thousand dollars. They informed him that they did not know what amount they could take, but would write to their companies and ascertain, and take what they could. The Hanover Fire Insurance Company and the Germania Fire Insurance Company were doing business in this State, and were insuring property against loss or damage by fire under what they denominated “ Underwriters Policy,” and they had an agency at Bay City, and were represented there by Daniel Shannon. The firm of Knaggs, Clark & Plum did not represent the Underwriters, but they applied to Shannon and placed a portion of the risk applied for by T. H. McGraw & Co., through Curtiss, in companies represented by Shannon; and they afterwards delivered
On May 6, 1882, a fire occurred which burned a portion of the logs. Notice was given to the companies of the loss, and adjusters were sent, representing all the companies, defendant included, to adjust the loss, and the adjuster representing the defendant company made out and forwarded to his company proofs of such loss.
On May 9, 1882, Wartrous sold his interest in the firm of T. H. McGraw & Co. to his copartner; and on the 24th of the same month Daniel Shannon, the agent of the Underwriters, indorsed the following consent upon the policy in question, viz.: “ The insurance companies within named hereby consent that the interest of Thomas IT. McGraw & Co., in the within policy, be assigned to Thomas H. McGraw, subject to all the terms and conditions therein mentioned and set forth.” On the same day Curtiss signed the firm name of T. II. McGraw & Co. to the indorsement on the policy, as follows : “For value received, we hereby assign, transfer and set over to Thomas H. McGraw all our right, title and interest in and to the within policy, and all benefit and advantage to be derived therefrom.”
The defendant sent Joseph H. Stringham to ascertain the amount of the loss occasioned by the fire of May 6th. He adjusted the loss for defendant, and made report thereof to the state agent of defendant on the 20th or 21st of May. He testified that there was a great deal of forest exposure; that it was right in the woods where the logs were skidded; that there had been timber cut away more or less, and that there was a great deal of exposure all around; that there was
It appears that on May 29th the defendant telegraphed to its agent Shannon to cancel the policy in question, and that Shannon went to plaintiff’s office and saw Curtiss, and told him he wished to pay the losses for the companies represented by him except the Underwriters, and made an appointment to meet Curtiss at Shannon’s office; that a little after 11 o’clock a. m. they met, and Shannon then showed Curtiss the telegram, and told him that the Underwriters had ordered him to cancel the policythat it would facilitate matters to cancel the policy over his counter; but as the business had been placed through ICnaggs, Clark & Plum through courtesy, he would go to them and have the policy canceled; that Curtiss replied that he thought it was all right, — he would hold the policies for the present.
On the same day, Shannon computed the amount of the unearned premiums upon this policy and others, and wrote and delivered to one of the firm of Knaggs, Clark & Plum a letter requesting them to cancel the policy in suit, with others, and in this letter he stated that he inclosed a check for the return premiums, but the check was not inclosed. When the letter was delivered to Mr. Clark, of the firm of Knaggs, Clark & Plum, he was told that the check was not inclosed, but if he would call at Shannon’s office in the course of an hour he would receive the currency, which he promised to do, but did not do so. On the 30th of May, Shannon made several efforts to see some member of the
On the 29th of May a fire started about forty rods from any of the logs covered by the policies of insurance, and spread over the ground until it reached the logs, which it did on the afternoon of May 30th, running through pine tops, brush and refuse upon the ground where the timber had been cut. There was refuse stuff upon the grojmd which fed the fire right up to the logs, and ran along the railroad track for a mile and a half, where the logs were piled, burning that distance over the ground, and as it passed along it caught in the logs at the different rollways, and burned them. The prevailing timber in the woods, in which the logs were skidded, besides pine, were oak, ash, cedar and hemlock. Timber had been cut in lumbering all through the woods in the immediate neighborhood of the skidded logs, and around where they were skidded, leaving the tree-tops on the ground, except what had been cleared away around the skidways, from sixty to a hundred feet, and the clearing of this distance was not much protection if the fire got burning. The fire became very large, and covered a territory of two miles in length and a mile in width, and burned the logs in four places, from one-half to three-fourths of a mile apart. From the 6th of May to the 30th, fires had been burning in the neighborhood of the logs all the time, and the men had been fighting such fires all the time, Pires had occurred as early as the 26th of April, and had burned some of the logs; and from the 26th of April to the 30th of May fires were burning continuously. The fire of May 30th occasioned a large loss to the property insured, and notice thereof was given to. the agent of defendant on the morning of the 31st, and afterwards proofs of loss were prepared and sent to the general agent of defendant at New York on the 17th of July. These proofs were sworn to. by ope Birdsall, whom the plaintiff authorized to prepare proofs of loss, and to verify the same.
On or about the 8th day of August, one K. H. Garrigue,
Upon the trial the plaintiff testified in his own behalf, and was asked the following question : “ What did you say, if anything, to Mr. Birdsall with reference to those proofs of loss before leaving ?” This was objected to by defendant’s counsel as immaterial. The objection was overruled and the witness testified : “ I gave Mr. Birdsall the authority to act in all respects as I would do if I were to remain, in connection with this insurance matter.” The proofs of loss had been introduced in evidence without objection, signed by Thomas H. McGraw, by Ben Birdsall, his attorney, and were verified by him ; and the evident object of the question was to show that the act was done by plaintiff’s authority. The evidence called for was material, and the ruling proper.
The record discloses the fact that the plaintiff was at Bay City both at the fire of May 6th and May 30th, and that he gave no notice to any insurance agents himself, and that he was not here at the time the proofs of loss were made out.
“ The policy requires the plaintiff, Thomas H. McGraw, to' make out in writing proofs of his loss, and sign and swear to them himself, and send or deliver them to the defendant;; and if he fails to do that he cannot recover from the defendant. In case the plaintiff has failed to show that he made and furnished to the defendant such proofs of loss in regard to the second fire, for that reason he would not be entitled to any recovery on account of the second fire.”
Tinder the policy in question, proofs of loss required by its terms are a condition precedent to a right of recovery; and in general they are to be signed and sworn to by the assured in person. But the clause in question is subject to exceptions; as where the owner is a non-resident, dead, or was insane or absent at the time when the loss occurred, and did not return in-season to make the proofs, or did not possess the necessary information in reference to the matters required to be stated, to make proofs, or that the objection as to their being made by the wrong person has been waived. See Wood on Insurance § 413. But where the assured ■ can himself make the necessary proofs he should do so, or give a sufficient excuse for his failure'; and ordinarily (though this is' not essential) the reasons why the proofs were not made by the assured should be stated in the proofs of loss.
The first inquiry presented is, does the present case come within any of the exceptions which authorize the proofs to be made by any other person than the assured ? In such case the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff. The record discloses the fact that the plaintiff is a non-resident of the State; that he has a place of business at Portsmouth, near Bay City,
R. H. Garrigue testified in behalf of defendant that he was defendant’s state agent for Michigan, and came to Bay City on the 6th or 7th of August, and wrote to Thomas TI. McGraw or Thomas IT. McGraw & Co., at Portsmouth, Michigan, from room 78, Fraser House, and sent it to Mr. McGraw’s office
“Bat Citt, Mich., August 8th, 1882.
T. H. McGraw & Co., Bay City, Mich. — Dear Sirs : As a further answer to your letter of July 28th, not included in my letter to you of August 1st, I would say that 1 am instructed by the general agent of the Germania and Hanover Eire Insurance Companies not to admit any liability under policy 20,300, nor waive any of the companies’ rights under the terms and conditions of said policy, but to investigate all the facts in the case, and report to him, when he will submit the same to the board of management for their action. The companies have requested Mr. Geo. D. Gould to examine you under oath, or some person authorized to give answers for you.
The companies also desire a statement from your agents and brokers, Messrs. Knaggs, Clark & Plum, in relation to procuring the insurance. Please inform me at room No. 78, Eraser House, this city, when you can appear for such examination.
Yours truly, R. H. Garrigue, State Agent.”
The offer was made for the purpose of showing the steps taken to-obtain an examination of Mr. McGraw under oath. Counsel for plaintiff objected to its reception for the reason that it stated no time or place, and it did not appear that it ever came to Mr. McGraw’s knowledge. The court sustained the objection and excluded the letter.
It was stipulated in the policy that the assured should, if required, submit to an examination under oath apart from all other persons except the attesting magistrate or notary, by any person appointed by the companies, and if deemed necessary by the companies, to a second examination, and subscribe to such examination when reduced to writing. By another clause of the policy it was provided that until such examination was permitted the loss should not be payable.
The provision for an examination apart from all other persons except the attesting magistrate is very unusual and
But while I do not feel called upon to declare the stipulation void for the reasons suggested, the party seeking to enforce such extraordinary provisions as a defense to an action upon the contract, must bring himself within the strict letter of the clause relied on. The requirement ought to be so definite in its terms, and certain as to time and place for the party to appear, as to put the assured in default if he failed or neglected to comply. But it is not contended by the counsel for defendant that the letter alone would have been sufficient to bar plaintiff’s right of recovery, and counsel avowed his object in offering it to be to show the steps
The defendant had been permitted to show a letter had been written to T. H. MeGraw & Co. and delivered at their office in Portsmouth, and that Mr. Curtiss appeared at room V8, Fraser House, in response thereto. This was sufficient to lead up to the interview with Mr. Curtiss. The letter was rightly excluded; and thereupon counsel for defendant put to the witness Garrigue this question: “I renew my question as to what took place between you and Mr. Curtiss at that time in regard to the examination of Mr. MeGraw under oath in regard to this insurance ? ” which was objected to as wholly immaterial. Counsel for defendant thereupon announced : “ The purpose is to show the interview between the witness and Mr. Curtiss in which Mr. Curtiss was informed of the desire of the company to examine Mr. MeGraw, and if he could noj; be examined then to examine Mr. Curtiss in his place.” He also stated that he claimed the right to the examination under the policy.
Under the proposition of counsel the question was subject to the same criticism as the letter. It was not proposed to show a requisition or demand that the assured submit to an
Daniel Shannon was produced and sworn as a witness for defendant, and testified that he resided in Bay City, and was the agent of the Germania Insurance Company and the Hanover Fire Insurance Company, the Underwriters’ companies, in April and May, 1882. That he issued the Underwriters policy put in evidence in this case; that it was signed by him as agent at or about this date; that J. W. Knaggs, of the firm of Knaggs, Clark & Plum, applied to him for the insurance on the 21st day of April; that at that time he, the witness, had no knowledge of the risk of the logs in question, or of their situation personally; that Mr. Knaggs described the logs and the risk to him ; that he, the witness, had no knowledge aside from the information obtained from Mr. Knaggs ; that he did not go to the woods at all.
The defendant’s counsel thereupon asked the witness the following question: “ What representations were made to you by Mr. Knaggs in regard to the risk, and the situation and exposure?” The defendant’s counsel offered to show that Knaggs then stated that there was no forest exposure; that the logs were then skidded upon - ground which had been burned over the year before, and were in a clearing, and there was no forest exposure around them except occasionally a scrub oak; and in reliance upon that representation Mr. Shannon made the insurance, and that the representations were false. The question was objected to. The defendant’s counsel claimed that under the facts testified to by Curtiss, Mr. Knaggs did act as the agent of T. H.
I think there was sufficient evidence to submit the question of fact to the jury to determine whether Knaggs, Clark & Plum were the agents of the insured in obtaining the policy from the Underwriters. It was well said on the argument that they were not themselves insurers, and were not applied to as such. They were not applied to as agents of any companies. They were applied to as persons by whom insurance might- be obtained. While the evidence shows
All inferences from these facts were to be drawn by the jury, under proper instructions from the court; and it was competent for them to find from the evidence that Knaggs, Clark & Plum were agents of the assured in procuring the insurance in the companies represented by Shannon as agent. If they were such agents, the representations made by them in procuring the policies, as to the situation of the property and the risk involved, were binding upon the plaintiff, although no express authority was given to them to make such representations, because, by giving them authority to procure the insurance, he must be held to have given them power to do any act necessary to obtain such insurance.
It is contended by defendant’s counsel that Knaggs did, in fact, act as the agent of Thomas H. McGraw & Co. in procuring this insurance ; that he made representations in their behalf by means of which the insurance was obtained; that those representations were false and fraudulent, making the policy void when it was delivered to him, and when he delivered it to Thomas H. McGraw & Co., they, by accepting it, ratified his agency in procuring it; that they could not ratify his act in procuring it separate from the means by which it was procured, and make it a valid policy; that the law does not allow them to adopt what he procured by fraud and was favorable to them, and to repudiate the fraud; and that it was competent as against them, when they sought to enforce the policy, to show that it was procured by fraud, and was void.
On the other hand, it is contended by counsel for plaintiff that Mr. Curtiss did not know until after the delivery of the
I think the principle which should control this case is well stated by Mr. Justice Kedfield in Fitzsimmons v. Joslin 21 Vt., at page 142. After reviewing the English authorities upon the subject, he says: “ The cases must revert and can only find secure repose upon the old basis, that a contract superinduced by substantial fraud entering into the very basis and frame-work of the contract, and without which it would not have been made, cannot be enforced against the party thus misled, whether the fraud originated with the other party, or
This principle is fully supported by the following authorities : Kerr on Fraud 111-114; Baker v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. 43 N. Y. 283; Elwell v. Chamberlin 31 N. Y. 611; Presby v. Parker 56 N. H. 409 ; Garner v. Mangam 93 N. Y. 642; Bennett v. Judson 21 N. Y. 238; Veazie v. Williams 8 How. 134; Carpenter v. American Ins. Co. 1 Story 57; Mundorff v. Wickersham 63 Penn. St. 87; Coleman v. Stark 1 Oregon 115 ; Morse v. Ryan 26 Wis. 356 ; Anderson v. Thornton 8 Exch. 425; Broom’s Leg. Max. 798, 799, 837, 793; Bigelow on Fraud, 367; Whart. Ag. §§ 89, 90; Robson v. Calze 1 Doug. 228; Concord Bank v. Gregg 14 N. H. 331; Doggett v. Emerson 3 Story 700.
In the case of Morse v. Ryan, supra, the plaintiff sued upon a contract made with defendant, and the defendant offered to show that he was induced to enter into the contract by false and fraudulent representations. The evidence was objected to on the- ground that there was no evidence that what was done by Robinson and Henry Ryan, a brother of plaintiff, who negotiated the contract, was done by authority from the plaintiff. The testimony was excluded. But this was held to be error by the Supreme Court. The Court said : “ The plaintiff having ratified and affirmed the contract, he also ratified and affirmed the means by which it was obtained; and such ratification was equivalent to previous authority given by him. The doctrine of the law is well settled, that a principal cannot accept and enjoy the benefits of a bargain made by his agent, without at the same time adopting the instrumentalities by which the agent consummated it.” And in Wilson v. Tumman 6 Man. & G. 236 (46 E. C. L.) Chief Justice Tindal said: “ That an act donefor another by a person not assuming to act for himself, but for such other person, though without any precedent authority whatever beco'mes the act of the principal, if subsequently ratified by him, is the known and well-established rule of law. In that case the principal is bound by the act, whether it be for his detriment of his advantage, and whether it be founded on a
If in this case we should regard the act of Mr. Knaggs in procuring this insurance for the plaintiff as an act done without any previous authority from plaintiff, yet when the plaintiff accepted the policy, and when he seeks to enforce its provisions in his favor by suit upon it, he ratifies the act of Mr. Knaggs, and adopts the contract as his own, and is bound by whatever Mr. Knaggs said or did as an inducement for defendant to enter into the contract as fully as if he had made the representations himself, although he was ignorant of what misrepresentations were made. It was held by Mr. Justice Story in Carpenter v. Am. Ins. Co., above cited, that the misrepresentations made by an agent in procuring a policy are equally fatal, whether made with the knowledge or consent of the principal or not. The ground in each case is the same. The underwriters are deceived ; they execute the policy upon the faith of statements, material to the risk, which turn out to be untrue. The mistake is, therefore, fatal to the policy, as it goes to the very essence of the contract. Augusta Ins. Co. v. Abbott 12 Md. 348.
It seems to me that it would be an unjust and unwise limitation to engraft in the doctrine of the law, that the principal does not ratify acts on the part of his agent of which he is not informed; and that he can ratify and enforce that part which is for his benefit, and reject that which is detrimental to him. Whatever exceptions may have been raised in eases where the agent has exceeded his instructions previously given, to exonerate the principal, they do not apply to cases of agency by ratification. If a third person, without any authority from another person, assumes to act for his benefit in making a contract, and he adopts such acts and accepts the contract, there can be no reason why such person so accepting should not be held to adopt all the acts and representations by which such contract was consummated. He is not hound to accept the acts of such third person, but if he does so he must accept them as a whole. In such case no question
The policy introduced in evidence contained the following; “ The application, survey, plan or description of the property herein insured shall be considered a part of this contract, and a warranty by the assured ; and any false representation by the assured of the condition, situation or occupancy of the property, or any omission to make known every fact material to the risk, or any overvaluation or misrepresentation whatever, either in the written application or otherwise,” shall render the policy void. It'thus appears that the representations made as to the property, its risk and exposure, was a part of the application, and made by express terms part of the contract; and it was, furthermore, a part of the contract that if any false representation was made of the condition or situation of the property it should avoid the contract. When the plaintiff adopted the policy as the contract between them, he adopted this provision of the policy, and it was competent for defendants to show what representations were made by Mr. Knaggs when he applied for the insurance, with reference to the matters referred to in this portion of the policy, and then, if they could, to show that such representations were false. I am clearly of opinion that the court erred in excluding the testimony offered for that purpose.
Testimony was offered to show what took place with reference to the attempted cancellation of the policy. The provision of the policy relative to cancellation was that “the companies reserve to themselves the right, at any time and for any cause, to return the assured the unexpired premium pro rata, which shall have the effect to cancel and annul this policy.” The record shows that the unexpired premium was not returned before the loss of May 30th occurred, and if the policy ever-had validity, it was in force at that time. The testimony was properly excluded.
The judgment of the circuit court should be reversed, and a new trial granted.