Planters' Mutual Insurance v. Green

80 S.W. 151, 72 Ark. 305, 1904 Ark. LEXIS 137
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 19, 1904
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 80 S.W. 151 (Planters' Mutual Insurance v. Green) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Planters' Mutual Insurance v. Green, 80 S.W. 151, 72 Ark. 305, 1904 Ark. LEXIS 137 (Ark. 1904).

Opinion

Battle, J.

Joe L. Green brought an action against the Planters’ Mutual Insurance Association to recover the sum of $1,500 on a policy of insurance executed to him by the association on the 16th day of February, 1900. The property insured was a stock of goods, wares and merchandise and a storehouse. The defendant admitted the execution of the policy, but denied that it was liable thereon, because it contained the following clause: “This entire policy, unless otherwise provided by agreement indorsed thereon or added hereto, shall be void if the insured now has or shall hereafter make or procure any other contract of insurance, whether valid or not, on property covered in whole or in part by this policy;” and because the plaintiff, after the execution of the policy procured other insurance upon the stock of goods, wares and merhandise, in the sum of $1,000, without its knowledge or consent.

The plaintiff recovered judgment, and the defendant appealed.

The policy sued on contains said clause. After its execution appellee procured other and additional insurance for $1,000 on the stock of goods, wares and merchandise. Before doing so he wrote a letter to appellant, saying that he intended to procure additional insurance. The letter was properly stamped and mailed, and it was never returned. The presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is that it was received. Oregon Steamship Co. v. Otis, 100 N. Y. 451. But this presumption may be rebutted. The uncontradicted and unimpeached, evidence in this case shows that''the letter was not received by the appellant. There was no evidence that appellant consented to the additional insurance. The policy was voided by the additional insurance.

Reversed, and remanded for new trial.

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

Related

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Burgin
752 F. Supp. 877 (W.D. Arkansas, 1990)
Ark. Grain Corp. v. Lloyd’s
402 S.W.2d 118 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1966)
Old Republic Ins. v. Martin
320 S.W.2d 266 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1959)
Baker v. Kansas City Fire & Marine Insurance
300 S.W.2d 264 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1957)
Roach v. Arkansas Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance
224 S.W.2d 48 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1949)
Teitelbaum v. Board of Revision of Taxes
65 Pa. D. & C. 619 (Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, 1947)
Milwaukee Mechanics' Lumber Company v. Gibson
134 S.W.2d 521 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1939)
The Travelers Ins. Co. v. Thompson
99 S.W.2d 254 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1936)
In Re Idaho Mutual Ben. Assn., Inc.
53 P.2d 1171 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1936)
Willman v. Bumgarner
53 P.2d 1171 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1936)
Taylor v. Corning Bank & Trust Co.
38 S.W.2d 557 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1931)
United Assurance Ass'n v. Frederick
195 S.W. 691 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1917)
Southern Engine & Boiler Works v. Vaughan
135 S.W. 913 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1911)
Bluthenthal v. Atkinson
124 S.W. 510 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
Nabors v. Dixie Mutual Fire Insurance
105 S.W. 92 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1907)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
80 S.W. 151, 72 Ark. 305, 1904 Ark. LEXIS 137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/planters-mutual-insurance-v-green-ark-1904.