STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
WILLIE LEE THOMPSON ET AL., APPELLEES

5th Cir. | 1957-05-09
No. 16484
244 F.2d 291 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (1957) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

An insurance company's agent's error in an application does not create a counter-offer accepted by the insured's retention of the erroneous policy.


Facts & Procedural History

An insurance agent mistakenly failed to strike printed policy limits on an application, creating an erroneous second policy. The insured retained this…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

Upon ample evidence the District Court in an opinion, Thompson v. State Farm Insurance Companies, D.C.La., 145 F.Supp. 473, which we approve as it relates to the limited matter now before us, by findings of fact which withstand the scrutiny of “clearly erroneous,” Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., and a correct statement of applicable Louisiana principles of law, held that the first policy was still in force and effect, had not been superseded by the second one, and had not been terminated by cancellation of the second one.

We reject, as did the District Court, the suggestion that the Insurance company, through errors of its own agent in erroneously failing to strike out of the application the printed figures “¡¡>10,-000/$20,000” for policy limits though the agent accurately indicated the premium for continuation of the í|>5,000/¡¡>10,-000 limits of the initial policy, could transmute delivery of this second and erroneous policy into a counter-offer, an implied acceptance of which was established, as a matter of law, by the mere continued retention (unread) of the policy for some 60 days by the assured ignorant of the changes. Certainly not where the objective is merely to “create” a new contract imposing added premium obligations which, on nonpayment, then serve as the basis for cancellation altogether. The assured, under policy provisions, was entitled as of right to substitution of the Chevrolet for the original Ford for the balance of the original policy term and for the limits and coverages specified in that policy and original application. The only new coverage sought, and which the agent intended to provide, was medical payments for which the assured paid the added premium of $3.00. His failure to pay the added premiums for other coverage not sought or desired neither resulted in the second and erroneous policy displacing the first, nor permitted the insurer to consider him in default and cancel for nonpayment of that which he did not owe.

Affirmed.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw