Flowers v. American Insurance
Flowers v. American Insurance Co.
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
Lee, J.
The two insurance policies here sued on were renewals, and contained a prohibition against other insurance “unless the total insurance, including this policy, is listed in the following spaces.” None was listed. The policies were in the possession of the appellant, and she should have been fully aware of the prohibition. Yet, previous to their issuance, the appellant had taken out other insurance in the amount of $6,000.00, but neither she nor the agent from whom that purchase was *736 made notified either the appellees or their agent. There was no proof whatever of a waiver of this provision. Consequently because of her failure to obtain the approval or consent of the appellees, she forfeited such benefits as might thereafter accrue under the two policies. Palatine Ins. Co. v. Smith, McKinnon & Son, 115 Miss. 324 , 75 So. 564 ; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Provine, 148 Miss. 659 , 114 So. 730 . See also Graham, et al. v. American Eagle Fire Ins. Co., 182 Fed. 2d 500.
Both the county and circuit courts properly denied Mrs. Flowers’ right to recover. Consequently the cause must be, and is, affirmed.
Affirmed.
McGehee, G. J., and Holmes, Arrington and Ethridge, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 6 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.