McGowan v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co.

U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio

McGowan v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co.

16 F. Cas. 125, 4 Am. Law. Rec. 559

CourtU.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio

DecidedJuly 1, 1876

StatusPublished

This text of 16 F. Cas. 125 (McGowan v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern Ohio primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGowan v. Charter Oak Life Ins. Co., 16 F. Cas. 125, 4 Am. Law. Rec. 559 (circtndoh 1876).

Pincite

Opinion

WELKER, District Judge,

charged the jury: 1st. That the policy of insurance, was the contract between the parties by which their rights were to be governed; and that the policy providing that a failure to pay the premium on the day when it became due would render the policy void, the failure to pay the premium due June 1st, 1873, terminated the policy; but, 2d. That this provision of the policy might be waived by the company; and if waived, and the premium was received after due by one having authority, this would revive the policy; and that, in the absence of any notice to the insured to the contrary, the insured had a right to infer that the general agent of the company had authority to waive non-payment of the premium, and by receiving it after due, to renew the policy, and such act [126]*126as between tbe company and tbe insured would bind the company, notwithstanding tbe secret instructions to the agent forbade him to exercise such authority; but, 3d. That if at the bottom of the policy, and also on the back thereof, as well as on all renewal receipts given to the insured since his policy began, there were clauses notifying him that the agent of the company had no authority to receive premiums after due, and that an attempt to do so would not be binding upon the company, such clauses were notices to the insured of the limitations of the authority of the agent in respect of receiving premiums, and being notice to the insured, no payment by him of an overdue premium would revive the policy unless known and notified by the company. 4th. That if the agent simply held the amount of the premium until he could write to the home office and get the renewal receipt and instructions, not accepting oi; intending to accept the premium as paid until the requirements of the company were complied with, and on failure of McGowan to comply with such requirements, the agent returned the premium. This would not be such an acceptance of the premium as would bind the defendant, even had the agent the fullest authority.

Under these instructions the jury returned a verdict for the defendant company.

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

WELKER, District Judge,

charged the jury: 1st. That the policy of insurance, was the contract between the parties by which their rights were to be governed; and that the policy providing that a failure to pay the premium on the day when it became due would render the policy void, the failure to pay the premium due June 1st, 1873, terminated the policy; but, 2d. That this provision of the policy might be waived by the company; and if waived, and the premium was received after due by one having authority, this would revive the policy; and that, in the absence of any notice to the insured to the contrary, the insured had a right to infer that the general agent of the company had authority to waive non-payment of the premium, and by receiving it after due, to renew the policy, and such act [126]*126as between tbe company and tbe insured would bind the company, notwithstanding tbe secret instructions to the agent forbade him to exercise such authority; but, 3d. That if at the bottom of the policy, and also on the back thereof, as well as on all renewal receipts given to the insured since his policy began, there were clauses notifying him that the agent of the company had no authority to receive premiums after due, and that an attempt to do so would not be binding upon the company, such clauses were notices to the insured of the limitations of the authority of the agent in respect of receiving premiums, and being notice to the insured, no payment by him of an overdue premium would revive the policy unless known and notified by the company. 4th. That if the agent simply held the amount of the premium until he could write to the home office and get the renewal receipt and instructions, not accepting oi; intending to accept the premium as paid until the requirements of the company were complied with, and on failure of McGowan to comply with such requirements, the agent returned the premium. This would not be such an acceptance of the premium as would bind the defendant, even had the agent the fullest authority.

Under these instructions the jury returned a verdict for the defendant company.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

16 F. Cas. 125, 4 Am. Law. Rec. 559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgowan-v-charter-oak-life-ins-co-circtndoh-1876.