Ross v. American Insurance

Ohio Court of Appeals

Ross v. American Insurance

21 Ohio Law. Abs. 293, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1167

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1936

DocketNo 2665

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 293 (Ross v. American Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ross v. American Insurance, 21 Ohio Law. Abs. 293, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1167 (Ohio Ct. App. 1936).

Pincite

Opinion

[294]*294OPINION

By WASHBURN, J.

Assuming, without deciding, that the record discloses that there was sufficient evidence to make the ques'kns of agency and authority of the agent jury issues, there still remains the question of whether or not the conduct of such assumed agent was such as to present a jury question as to whether or not such conduct constituted a waiver of said provision of the policy requiring suit to be brought within twelve months after the fire.

Whatever there was of such conduct, it occurred very soon after the fire and just before and soon after the plaintiff was arrested on charges involving the origin of such fire, and related to the subject of proof of loss only; and construing such conduct most favorably to the plaintiff, we are of the opinion that reasonable minds could arrive at but one conclusion, and that is that there was no promise, express or implied, that the loss would be paid, and no intention on the part of said alleged agent to . mislead the plaintiff concerning his bringing suit, or justify him in believing that any such waiver was intended; and accordingly, if said alleged agent was the agent of the insurance company, and was acting within the scope of his authority, there was no waiver.

Reynolds v Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co., 19 Fed. (2) 110.

Therefore the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

FUNK, PJ, and STEVENS, J, concur in judgment.

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

[294]*294OPINION

By WASHBURN, J.

Assuming, without deciding, that the record discloses that there was sufficient evidence to make the ques'kns of agency and authority of the agent jury issues, there still remains the question of whether or not the conduct of such assumed agent was such as to present a jury question as to whether or not such conduct constituted a waiver of said provision of the policy requiring suit to be brought within twelve months after the fire.

Whatever there was of such conduct, it occurred very soon after the fire and just before and soon after the plaintiff was arrested on charges involving the origin of such fire, and related to the subject of proof of loss only; and construing such conduct most favorably to the plaintiff, we are of the opinion that reasonable minds could arrive at but one conclusion, and that is that there was no promise, express or implied, that the loss would be paid, and no intention on the part of said alleged agent to . mislead the plaintiff concerning his bringing suit, or justify him in believing that any such waiver was intended; and accordingly, if said alleged agent was the agent of the insurance company, and was acting within the scope of his authority, there was no waiver.

Reynolds v Detroit Fidelity & Surety Co., 19 Fed. (2) 110.

Therefore the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

FUNK, PJ, and STEVENS, J, concur in judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 Ohio Law. Abs. 293, 1936 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 1167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-american-insurance-ohioctapp-1936.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack