Wilson v. New Hampshire Fire Insurance

A. instructed B. to procure insurance in some good company. B. applied to C., an insurance agent, (who had authority to issue policies in the U. Company and in the N. Company,) and C. delivered to B. a policy in the U. Company, which contained a clause reserving to the company the right, after giving written notice to the insured, to cancel the policy as to all risks subsequent to the expiration of ten days from such notice. B. delivered the policy to A., who accepted it. Ten days later the insurance company directed C. to cancel the risk. C. thereupon entered the risk on the policy register of the N. Company, and made out a policy. Five days later, the property insured was destroyed by fire. On the same day, after the fire, but with no knowledge of it, C. mailed the second policy to B. with a letter, dated the day before, informing him that the U. Company declined the risk, and requesting an exchange of policies. After he had sent the second policy, C., on the same day, received a letter from the N. Company declining the risk. B. notified C. of the loss on the same day, after he had received the second policy. C., after receiving the letter of the N. Company, went to see B., and A., at B.’s request, and in C.’s presence, handed the first policy to B., and accepted the second policy in exchange; and B. then gave the first policy to C., at his request. Each company returned the premium to C., and refused to pay the loss. Held, that A. could not maintain an action against the N. Company.

Contract upon a policy of insurance, in the form prescribed by the Pub. Sts. c. 119, § 139, against loss by fire, in the sum of $2000, upon a frame building in process of erection in Palmer, and on materials used in building the same, for three years from April 13, 1883. The case was submitted to the Superior Court, and, after judgment for the defendant, to this court, on appeal, upon agreed facts, in substance as follows: On April 12,1883, Homer C. Strong, an insurance broker, in accordance with instructions from the plaintiff, applied to S. C. Warriner, who was an agent for several insurance companies, at Springfield, for a policy of insurance in the sum of $2000, in some good company, on the plaintiff’s frame building, then in process of erection, in Palmer. Warriner forthwith delivered to Strong a policy, countersigned by Warriner as agent, in the Union Insurance Company, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, duly executed by that company, in the same form as the policy in suit. Strong then delivered the policy to the plaintiff, who accepted it, and Warriner charged the premium to Strong, with whom he had an open account, and credited the same to the insurance company. On April 23, 1883, Warriner received a letter from the company, dated April 21, instructing him to cancel the policy. Warriner forthwith entered the risk upon the policy register of the defendant company, and wrote the policy in suit, immediately notifying the defendant of the same. At the time when Warriner wrote the policy in the defendant company, he credited the company with the amount of the premium, in accordance with his usual custom. On April 28, 1883, about one o’clock in the morning, the building insured was destroyed by fire. About seven o’clock on the same morning, Warriner, who had no knowledge of the loss, mailed the policy in suit to Strong, accompanied by a letter dated April 27, informing him that the Union Company had declined the risk, and requesting an exchange of policies; which letter was received by Strong on the same morning. Warriner, who had transacted considerable insurance business for Strong, had authority from him to make changes of insurance, if any risks placed by him were declined or became inoperative from any cause. On said April 28, after he had mailed the policy to Strong, Warriner received a letter from the defendant, dated April 26, declining the risk. On said day, Strong notified Warriner by telegraph of the loss, after the receipt of the policy by Strong; and Warriner received the telegram. In the afternoon of said April 28, Warriner, after receiving the defendant’s letter declining the risk, went to Palmer, and the plaintiff, at Strong’s request, and in the presence of Warriner, handed the policy in the Union Company to Strong and accepted the policy in suit in exchange. Strong then gave the policy in the Union Company to Warriner, at his request, with the understanding that the plaintiff’s rights should not be prejudiced in case he failed to hold under the policy in suit. After the fire, Warriner made no change in his books, and each company stood credited with the amount of the premium named in the policy of each; and Warriner wrote to each company, stating the facts as he understood them. Proofs of loss were duly made by the plaintiff to, and received by, each company. The defendant company, when it received the amount of the premium in the monthly account of Warriner, returned the same to him; and the Union Company directed Warriner to charge the same back to it. Each company refused to pay the loss, and actions were brought against each by the plaintiff. Each policy, after providing that it might be cancelled at any time at the request of the insured, contained this clause: “ The company also reserves the right, after giving written notice to the insured, .... and tendering to the insured a ratable proportion of the premium, to cancel this policy as to all risks subsequent to the expiration of ten days from such notice.”