AETNA INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR,
v.
JAMES HOLMES AND H. Y. TOOKES, DEFENDANTS IN ERROR
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.
Aetna Insurance Company appealed a judgment for policyholders Holmes and Tookes on a fire insurance claim, arguing the plaintiffs failed to provide timely notice and proof of loss. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed, holding that an insurance company's local agent with authority to issue policies and collect premiums also has apparent authority to waive proof-of-loss requirements, and the company cannot selectively deny the agent's authority when denying claims.
An insurance agent with authority to issue policies and collect premiums also has authority to waive proof-of-loss requirements, whether expressed in writing, orally, or through conduct creating estoppel. An insurance company cannot make its local agent the conduit for all benefits flowing from insured to company while denying the agent's authority when asserting those benefits. The public may rely on an agent's apparent authority without inquiring into the agent's special powers.
“An insurance company cannot make its local agent a medium through which all the benefits of a policy flow from the insured to it, and then deny he has authority to represent it when the benefits of the insured are involved.”
Core principle: insurers cannot selectively deny agents' authority based on whether the agent's actions benefit or harm the company
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAetna issued a fire insurance policy to Holmes and Tookes through its local agent B. W. Helveston and collected the premium. The insured house was sub…
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 Waiver Of Proof Of Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
Taylor, J.
The defendants in error as plaintiffs below sued the plaintiff in error in the Circuit Court of Suwannee County on a policy of fire insurance and recovered judgment and the defendant the insurance company brings the case here by writ of error. The defendant pleaded that the plaintiffs have failed to furnish the.notice and proof of loss within the time limited by the policy. To these pleas the plaintiff by replication set up that' the local agent of the company after the loss had' waived the proofs of loss by absolutely denying any • and all liability by the defendant company on the policy sued upon; At the trial the court gave the following charge which is assigned as error:
“If you believe from the evidence in this case that the defendant company, through its agent, B.
W. Helveston, issued a fire insurance policy to the plaintiff in this case, and that they received a premium for that policy from the plaintiff, and that during the life of that policy the house was burned down and totally destroyed; and if you believe from the evidence in this case that the plaintiff sought to recover his loss from the agent that issued the policy, to-wit, B.
W. Helveston, and that the defendant through its agent B.
W. Helveston repudiated the policy and absolutely denied tile liability of the defendant for that loss, or words amounting to that same thing, then you should find that the company had waived the requirement of this proof, because the law is that where a local agent of an insurance company has authority to represent the company in making contracts of insurance, in collecting premiums and in signing policies, he also has authority to waive proof of loss, either in writing or by parol or by matters in pais, which amounts to an estoppel. An insurance company cannot make its local agent a medium through which all the benefits of a policy flow from the insured to it, and then deny he has authority to represent it when the benefits of the insured are involved. The acts of an agent performed within the scope of his real or apparent authority are binding upon his principal. The public have a right to rely upon an agent’s apparent authority, and are not bound to enquire as to his special power, unless tlxe circumstances are such as to put them upon inquiry. The court charges you that the plaintiff in this case is not called upon to enquire as to Mr. Helveston’s authority to waive the requirements of notification in writing of the loss he, sustained, and would not be bound by the lack of authority upon the part of Mr. Helveston, unless he had been put upon notice.”
Other charges of similar import are-also, assigned as error. That there was no error in these charges is fully settled here in the case of Indian River State Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 46 Fla. 283, 35 South. Rep. 228. Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen & Co., 56 Fla. 246.
The proofs in the case although conflicting abundantly sustain the verdict returned by the jury. Finding no error the judgment of the court below in said cause is hereby affirmed at the costs of the plaintiff in error. Whitfield, C. J., and Shackleford, Ho’cker and Park-hill, J. J., concur. Cockrell, J., absent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Am. Fire Ins. Co. v. King Lumber & Mfg. Co., 74 Fla. 130 (Fla. 1917)…Rep. 89, and. Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246, 47 South. Rep. 947. Still other decisions of this court, as well as of courts of other jurisdictions, will be found cited in these opinions. We would also refer to Aetna Insurance Co. v. Holmes, 59 Fla. 116, 52 South. Rep. 801; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Brown, 60 Fla., 83, 53 South. Rep. 838; Southern States Fire Ins. Co. v. Vann, 69 Fla. 549, 68 South. Rep. 647, L. R. A. 1916B 1189; Palantine Insurance Co. v. Whitfield, 73 Fla. 716, 74 South. Rep. 869…
-
Parsons v. Fed. Realty Corp., 105 Fla. 105 (Fla. 1931)…1 Fed. 31, 241 U. S. 613, 60 L. Ed. 1202; Pac. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Calif. vs. Barton, 50 Fed. (2nd) 362 (C. C. A. 5th Circuit); Southern States Fire Ins. Co. vs. Vann, 69 Fla. 549, 68 Sou. Rep. 647 L. R. A. 1916B 1189; Aetna Ins. Co. vs. Holmes, 59 Fla. 116, 52 Sou. Rep. 801. In the case now before the Court, the Circuit Judge found from the evidence that the agent of the National Surety Company had no authority to execute and deliver the bond sued on. There is nothing in the record which shows that t…
-
Symons Corp. v. Tartan-Lavers Delray Beach, Inc., 456 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…an Ladder and Scaffold Co. v. Miami Ventilated Awning Mfg. Co., 161 So. 2d 699 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964) (An agent’s authority need not be conferred in express terms, but may be apparent or implied under justifying circumstances); Aetna Ins. Co. v. Holmes, 59 Fla. 116, 52 So. 801 (1910); Parsley Bros. Constr. Co. v. Humphrey, 136 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962); One Hour Valet, Inc. v. Keck, 157 So. 2d 83 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963) (stating that whether acts are within scope of an agent’s apparent authority or whether acts…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- The Eagle Fire Co. v. Lewallen, 56 Fla. 246 (Fla. 1908)
- The Indian River State Bank v. The Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 46 Fla. 283 (Fla. 1903)