American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Eastham

Fifth Circuit

American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Eastham

185 F.2d 729, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3351

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedDecember 6, 1950

Docket13167_1

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 185 F.2d 729 (American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Eastham) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Eastham, 185 F.2d 729, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3351 (5th Cir. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by appellee upon a fire insurance policy for $7000, and judgment obtained by him for that amount. The policy insured him against loss by fire on a frame building in Dallas, Texas, which was totally destroyed by fire on July 12, 1948. The policy contained a provision that it should be void if the house became vacant for more than thirty consecutive days. Appellant denied liability on the ground that appellee had violated this provision; the insured claimed that the insurer had waived the forfeiture clause by its retention of the. premium and its failure to cancel the policy, notwithstanding it had notice of the vacancy long before the fire and continued to have such notice until the time of the fire. Issue was joined upon this question of waiver; and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff below, after having been properly charged by the court upon the law of the case.

It is well settled under Texas law that where the insurer acquires full knowledge of facts sufficient to work a forfeiture of its policy, and does not cancel the policy but retains the unearned premium, it waives the condition and is estopped to claim a forfeiture. It is equally well settled that a provision in the policy against the waiver of any such condition, except by written endorsement thereof, is ineffectual to prevent a parol waiver thereof by an authorized agent acting within the scope of his authority. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. McLemore, 7 Tex.Civ.App. 317, 26 S.W. 928; German-American Ins. Co. v. Evants, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 300, 61 S.W. 536; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Ellis, 105 Tex. 526, 147 S.W. 1152, 152 S.W. 625; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Eastman, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W. 763; Occidental Fire Ins. Co. v. Fort Worth Grain & Elevator Co., Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W. 953; Republic Ins. Co. v. Dickson, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 599; Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Roberts, 129 Tex. 178, 100 S.W.2d 91; Piedmont Fire Ins. Co. v. Ladin, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 991.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This action was brought by appellee upon a fire insurance policy for $7000, and judgment obtained by him for that amount. The policy insured him against loss by fire on a frame building in Dallas, Texas, which was totally destroyed by fire on July 12, 1948. The policy contained a provision that it should be void if the house became vacant for more than thirty consecutive days. Appellant denied liability on the ground that appellee had violated this provision; the insured claimed that the insurer had waived the forfeiture clause by its retention of the. premium and its failure to cancel the policy, notwithstanding it had notice of the vacancy long before the fire and continued to have such notice until the time of the fire. Issue was joined upon this question of waiver; and the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff below, after having been properly charged by the court upon the law of the case.

It is well settled under Texas law that where the insurer acquires full knowledge of facts sufficient to work a forfeiture of its policy, and does not cancel the policy but retains the unearned premium, it waives the condition and is estopped to claim a forfeiture. It is equally well settled that a provision in the policy against the waiver of any such condition, except by written endorsement thereof, is ineffectual to prevent a parol waiver thereof by an authorized agent acting within the scope of his authority. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. McLemore, 7 Tex.Civ.App. 317, 26 S.W. 928; German-American Ins. Co. v. Evants, 25 Tex.Civ.App. 300, 61 S.W. 536; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Ellis, 105 Tex. 526, 147 S.W. 1152, 152 S.W. 625; Aetna Ins. Co. v. Eastman, Tex.Civ.App., 236 S.W. 763; Occidental Fire Ins. Co. v. Fort Worth Grain & Elevator Co., Tex.Civ.App., 294 S.W. 953; Republic Ins. Co. v. Dickson, Tex.Civ.App., 69 S.W.2d 599; Home Ins. Co. of New York v. Roberts, 129 Tex. 178, 100 S.W.2d 91; Piedmont Fire Ins. Co. v. Ladin, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 991.

The judgment appealed from is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 F.2d 729, 1950 U.S. App. LEXIS 3351, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-fire-casualty-co-v-eastham-ca5-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack