State Farm Insurance Companies v. Willie Lee Thompson

Fifth Circuit

State Farm Insurance Companies v. Willie Lee Thompson

244 F.2d 291

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 11, 1957

Docket16484

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 244 F.2d 291 (State Farm Insurance Companies v. Willie Lee Thompson) 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

State Farm Insurance Companies v. Willie Lee Thompson, 244 F.2d 291 (5th Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Upon ample evidence the District Court in an opinion, Thompson v. State Farm Insurance Companies, D.C.La., 145 F.Supp. 473, which we approve as it relates to the limited matter now before us, by findings of fact which withstand the scrutiny of “clearly erroneous,” Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., and a correct statement of applicable Louisiana principles of law, held that the first policy was still in force and effect, had not been superseded by the second one, and had not been terminated by cancellation of the second one.

We reject, as did the District Court, the suggestion that the Insurance company, through errors of its own agent in erroneously failing to strike out of the application the printed figures “¡¡>10,-000/$20,000” for policy limits though the agent accurately indicated the premium for continuation of the í|>5,000/¡¡>10,-000 limits of the initial policy, could transmute delivery of this second and erroneous policy into a counter-offer, an implied acceptance of which was established, as a matter of law, by the mere continued retention (unread) of the policy for some 60 days by the assured ignorant of the changes. Certainly not where the objective is merely to “create” a new contract imposing added premium obligations which, on nonpayment, then serve as the basis for cancellation altogether.

The assured, under policy provisions, was entitled as of right to substitution of the Chevrolet for the original Ford for the balance of the original policy term and for the limits and coverages specified in that policy and original application. The only new coverage sought, and which the agent intended to provide, *292 was medical payments for which the assured paid the added premium of $3.00. His failure to pay the added premiums for other coverage not sought or desired neither resulted in the second and erroneous policy displacing the first, nor permitted the insurer to consider him in default and cancel for nonpayment of that which he did not owe.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Upon ample evidence the District Court in an opinion, Thompson v. State Farm Insurance Companies, D.C.La., 145 F.Supp. 473, which we approve as it relates to the limited matter now before us, by findings of fact which withstand the scrutiny of “clearly erroneous,” Fed. Rules Civ.Proc., rule 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., and a correct statement of applicable Louisiana principles of law, held that the first policy was still in force and effect, had not been superseded by the second one, and had not been terminated by cancellation of the second one.

We reject, as did the District Court, the suggestion that the Insurance company, through errors of its own agent in erroneously failing to strike out of the application the printed figures “¡¡>10,-000/$20,000” for policy limits though the agent accurately indicated the premium for continuation of the í|>5,000/¡¡>10,-000 limits of the initial policy, could transmute delivery of this second and erroneous policy into a counter-offer, an implied acceptance of which was established, as a matter of law, by the mere continued retention (unread) of the policy for some 60 days by the assured ignorant of the changes. Certainly not where the objective is merely to “create” a new contract imposing added premium obligations which, on nonpayment, then serve as the basis for cancellation altogether.

The assured, under policy provisions, was entitled as of right to substitution of the Chevrolet for the original Ford for the balance of the original policy term and for the limits and coverages specified in that policy and original application. The only new coverage sought, and which the agent intended to provide, *292 was medical payments for which the assured paid the added premium of $3.00. His failure to pay the added premiums for other coverage not sought or desired neither resulted in the second and erroneous policy displacing the first, nor permitted the insurer to consider him in default and cancel for nonpayment of that which he did not owe.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 F.2d 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-farm-insurance-companies-v-willie-lee-thompson-ca5-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack