THE NEW ORLEANS INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, APPELLANT,
v.
M. A. BONIEL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The New Orleans Insurance Association appeals a verdict for the plaintiff in an insurance dispute. The court reversed, finding no evidence that the plaintiff ever designated the defendant company for insurance coverage or that a valid contract existed between the parties.
The court held that there was no valid contract between the plaintiff and defendant company because no testimony showed the plaintiff designated the defendant company for insurance, Bell had no agency relationship specific to the defendant company, the defendant had no knowledge of Bell's involvement, and the changed circumstances (different property location and different coverage amounts) precluded any presumption of contract based on the prior expired policy.
“There is no testimony in the case showing that when plaintiff applied for the insurance any company was mentioned in which plaintiff desired to have his property insured.”
Establishes the fundamental lack of evidence that plaintiff designated the defendant company
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWatson was an agent for multiple fire insurance companies. Bell was Watson's employee who received insurance applications, forwarded them to Watson, a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Insurance Contract Formation cases and more on FLexlaw
The Chief-Justice delivered the opinion of the court.
There is no pretence that there is any testimony in the case showing that when plaintiff applied for the insurance any company was mentioned in which plaintiff desired to have his property insured. Watson was an agent for several fire insurance companies, and Bell, who seems to have been his employe in receiving applications for insurance and forwarding such applications to Watson for his action, and in delivering policies, when the applications were accepted by Watson, and collecting premiums thereon at Warring-ton for Watson, had no other agency in the matter. This general employment of Bell was not in reference to insurance in the defendant company alone but extended to several other companies for which Watson was the agent.
Bell never had any correspondence with defendant on its or his business, and it does not appear that the company had any knowledge of Bell’s connection with Watson or with their business. There is no testimony in the case from which a legitimate inference can be drawn that plaintiff desired to insure his property in this company.
The facts were simply that in January, 1882, he took out a policy for $300 on his property in a house at Warrington and $200 on stock of wine, &c., which expired in July. In August he desired to renew it and a policy issued by defendant was tendered shim, but as he failed to pay the premium it was returned to Watson and cancelled. Afterwards in the latter part of September he “ applied to Mr. Bell for insurance to the amount of $600 ; $300 on my furniture, wearing apparel, &c., in my dwelling house, (afterwards burned) and $300 on my stock in my saloon.” The property was not in the same house it. was in when the first policy was taken out. And so the conditions being changed the amount of insurance desired being different, and no company being designated, there is no ground for the presumption that this company had entered into any contract to insure the property from the circumstances that they had before that issued a policy to him which had expired and which he manifestly declined to renew. In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary to consider other questions. The verdict was against the evidence and was not warranted by the charge of the court.
Reversed and new trial granted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Collins v. Aetna Ins. Co., 103 Fla. 848 (Fla. 1931)…gin, the duration it was to run, or the rate of premium it should bear, nor does the record disclose facts from which these essentials could be inferred. Failure to do this vitiated the parole agreement. New Orleans Insurance Association vs. Boniel, 20 Fla. 815. As a second ground of liability appellant presses the ■doctrine of the undisclosed principal, that is to say, that the agent Weaver at the time of the agreement definitely contracted to insure the premises in question, that he was acting for appel…