Flowers v. American Insurance

Mississippi Supreme Court

Flowers v. American Insurance

78 So. 2d 886, 223 Miss. 732, 1955 Miss. LEXIS 431

CourtMississippi Supreme Court

DecidedApril 4, 1955

DocketNo. 39592

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 78 So. 2d 886 (Flowers v. American Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Flowers v. American Insurance, 78 So. 2d 886, 223 Miss. 732, 1955 Miss. LEXIS 431 (Mich. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

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]*736made 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.

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

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]*736made 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

78 So. 2d 886, 223 Miss. 732, 1955 Miss. LEXIS 431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flowers-v-american-insurance-miss-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack