Authority of Agent. upon the part of the latter, if the prin- particular locality, it cannot allege want cipal, though aware of the real state of authority afterwards. Nor, it seems, of facts, was not cognizant of the mis- for such acts as appear usual and proper representation being made, nor directed in the business in which the agent is enthe agent to make it. The company can-gaged. Etna Ins. Co. v. Maguire, 51 III. not be affected by any act of the agent, not within the scope of his authority. Kelly v. Troy Fire Ins. Co., 3 Wis. 254. 342. 142. The custom of agents ratified by the company sufficiently establishes their authority. Illinois Fire Ins. Co. v. Stanton, 57 Ill. 354. 141.- Though an agent have but local authority, yet if he is entrusted with the delivery of policies without first submit138. The agents were furnished with ting the proposal to the company, a blank policies, which were to be filled up, refusal to pay a loss cannot be based indorsed and issued at their discretion; upon private instructions, limiting his and their power as to the rate of pre-power by requiring him to notify the mium, the amount of the risk, and the company of other insurance or obtain its nature of it was unlimited. The policy indorsement thereof. Kenton Ins. Co. v. in this case was filled up and counter-Shea & O'Connell, 6 Bush, 174 (Ky.) signed by the agents on the 14th of October, but was not delivered, nor was the premium paid until the 8th of December following, when on demand of the assured, a nemorandum was indorsed on the policy materially changing the risk; held, that these agents being clothed with general powers as to filling up and issuing policies, and having authority to make an original contract of insurance with terms similar to those found in this policy, had authority, before the delivery of the policy, to enlarge from its first draft by a change or modification of the description of the property insured, so as to embrace the case of a building unfinished, but then in process of construction; and that the omission of the agents to communicate the change made to their principal, did not affect the liability of the company on the policy. Gloucester Manf. Co. v. Howard Fire Ins. Co., 5 the company in dispensing with a formalGray, 497 (Mass.) ity. Pierce v. Nashua Fire Ins. Co., 50 N. H. 297. 139.- A local agent of an insurance company issued a policy upon the interest of a mortgagee in certain property. The agent had been instructed by the company not to take applications upon mortgage interests. Held, that the insured could not be prejudiced by the fact that such instructions had been given; he having no knowledge of such a limitation of the powers of the agent. Woodbury Savings Bank v. Charter Oak Ins. Co., 31 Conn. 517. 140.- Where a company know and acquiesce in the acts of their agent, which induce the public to believe him vested with power to do such acts, such as to issue a policy upon property outside his 143.- A member of the insured firm, to whom his partner has sold out, was told by the company's agent that a transfer of the policy was not necessary; but the agent being still applied to, promised to reinsure him, and took the papers for that purpose; and returning them in a few days, collected the premium. After the fire, the papers were found not to be a new policy, but a renewal of the old without indorsement of consent to the transfer, which was required therein. Held, every agent is presumed to have power naturally incident to his agency, and it may reasonably be presumed that a person held out as "the agent of the company" has authority to act for 144.— Authority of agent is not limited by written instructions and authority. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilcox, 57 Ill. 180. 145.- A general agent having power under the direction of the executive committee to settle claims, was in the habit of adjusting claims for loss, and drawing drafts for the same which the company honored and paid. The community could presume authority to draw such drafts. Therefore in a suit on a draft by such agent against the company, evidence of such similar drafts is admissible. Fayles v. National Ins. Co., 49 Mo. 380. - Authority of Agent. a case knowledge and conversation with the assured upon the subject, without objection or any suggestion that any breach of condition had been created or would be relied upon, is sufficient to make a case of estoppel. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v. Earle, 33 Mich. 143. See No. 174. to some extent taken an active part in the terms of a policy by parol, notwithbusiness of ascertaining and adjusting standing it expressly provides that conlosses, does not prove a general authority sent can only be given by a written into act in such matters. Such an authority dorsement, even after its issue. In such is special in its nature, and must be established. The adoption of an arbitrator previously selected by other parties is not within the apparent scope of his agency. Turner v. Quincy Ins. Co., 109 Mass. 568. 147. If company itself ignores a special authority and expressly gives or encourages an agent to exercise additional 153. If assured at time of application powers for several years, and ratifies and to company's agent has no knowledge of confirms the same, thus holding him out provisions of policy, and could not know to the world as rightfully exercising all that by it, the agent in taking the applithose powers, thereby inducing the pub-cation was to be deemed his agent and lic to believe in and rely upon his agency, not that of the company, he has the right company cannot after a loss repudiate his to treat the agent as agent of the comaction and fall back upon written author-pany and as possessing the power to agree ity for the purpose of evading the legal upon premiums and to fill up the policy effect of those acts. If company ratifies and deliver it to him as an operative such acts people have a right to presume instrument. Gates v. Penn Fire Ins. Co., such continued acts within the scope of 10 Hun, 489 (N. Y.) his authority, and act upon such presumption. Farmers Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 73 Pa. 342. 148.- When company delivers blank receipts or certificates signed by its officers to an agent, with authority to deliver them to applicants, it is bound by alterations and erasures made in such papers by the agent before their delivery, although he may be acting in violation of his duty to the company. Dayton Ins. Co. v. Kelley, 24 Ohio St. 345. - 149. Agent having a general authority to act binds company by acts and declarations within ordinary and usual scope of his authority, although in excess of private or secret instructions. Lattomus v. Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 3 Houston, 404 (Del.) 150. An agent has apparent authority only to insure in the modes authorized by the charter of the company, and upon the terms and conditions inserted in their policies in ordinary use. De Grove v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 594. 151.- Agents in the matter of the application, and all they do before the policy is issued, are the accredited agents acting within the apparent scope of their authority, and their acts bind the company. Baker v. Home Ins. Co., 64 N. Y. 648. 154.— Authority of agent cannot be established by his assumption in doing the act relied upon. Reynolds v. Continental Ins. Co., 36 Mich. 131. 155.- Agent has no power to revive a canceled policy already rejected by the company without evidence of authority to rescind or recall the action of his principal. Such authority cannot be presumed. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 36 Mich. 502. 156.- Company is bound by the acts and declarations of its agent within apparent and general scope of his authority and assured is not affected by limitation of such authority unless same is known to him. Rockford Ins. Co. v. Nelson, 65 Ill. 415; Eclectic Ins. Co. v. Fahrenkrug, 68 Ill. 463; Ins. Co. v. Lyons, 38 Tex. 253; Am. Cent. Ins. Co. v. McLanathan, 11 Kans. 533; Hartford Ins. Co. v. Farrish, 73 Ill. 166; Angell v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 59 N. Y. 171; Continental Ins. Co. v. Kasey, 25 Grat. 268 (Va.); Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Kinnier, 28 Grat. 88 (Va.); Ins. Co. v. McCain, 6 Otto, 84 (U. S.) 157.- A local agent of company, as such, does not have unlimited authority to represent his principal. Reynolds v. Continental Ins. Co., 36 Mich. 131. 158.- When policy contains conditions that the one who procures the insurance 152.- Local agent may vary and waive shall be the agent of the assured, and Authority of Agent. 166. Restrictions on authority of agent do not bind insured prior to delivery of the policy. Crouse v. Ins. Co., 79 also that the application must be made Atlantic Ins. Co. v. Carlin, 58 Md. 337. out by company's authorized agent, and application is made out by such agent, held, that the former condition does not apply. Sprague v. Holland Purchase | Mich. 249. Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 128. 167. If assured relies upon acts of an 159.- Agent authorized to take risks agent to bind the company, the authority and issue policies may waive by parol any of the former must be first proved. condition in policy issued by him. American Underwriters Association v. Winans v. Allemania Fire Ins. Co., 38 George, 11 Ins. L. J. 841; 97 Pa. 238. Wis. 342. S. P. Waives prepayment pre- 168.- An agent has no authority to mium by giving credit. Taylor v. Ger-insure property which has been demania Ins. Co., 2 Dill. 282 (U. S. Cir.); stroyed. Stebbins v. Lancashire Ins. Young v. Hartford Ins. Co., 45 Iowa, 377. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 698; 60 N. H. 65. 160. If agent is authorized to indorse written consent upon the policy, he is authorized to waive conditions requiring such consent. McCabe v. Dutchess Co. Mut. Ins. Co., 14 Hun, 599 (N. Y.) 161. The question is not merely what the real authority of agent was, but what was his apparent authority, as shown by his acts, done with the knowledge and assent of the company. Id. 162. The mere fact that application for insurance is forwarded to the office of the company for approval with knowledge of the assured, is not evidence that he had notice of any limitation upon the authority of such agent. American Ins. Co. v. Gallatin, 48 Wis. 36. 169.- Agent's authority will not be assumed, it must be either expressly conferred or be within the range of his prescribed duties. It cannot be established by his own declarations. Biggs v. North Carolina Home Ins. Co., 88 N. C. 141; 13 Ins. L. J. 302. 170.- If an agent have authority to make contracts of insurance and issue policies, the company is bound by anything said or done by him in reference to any such contract, either before or after the contract, and notice to him is notice to the company. Rivara v. Queen's Ins. Co., 62 Miss. 720. 171. The fact that agent's name is written across the back of a policy as 162a.- Agent has no authority to de-agent of the company is not sufficient to liver policies before receiving payment of premium. Western Assur. Co. v. Provincial Ins. Co., 5 Tupper, 190 (Can.) 163.- A policy holder cannot be affected by any limitation to the agent's authority not communicated to him, and a general agent of a company has power to receive notice of the sale of the property insured, to waive the condition of the policy and assent to the alienation. Millville, etc., Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' etc., Loan Assoc'n, 43 N. J. L. 652. 164.— Authority to insure one kind of property does not necessarily include authority to take risks of any kind; if there was any such presumption it would be rebutted by the fact that the agent received and forwarded the application to the company to pass upon the risk. Smith v. State Ins. Co., 11 Ins. L. J. 673; 58 Iowa, 487. 165.— Insured has no right to assume an agency on mere declaration of the agent when he has no authority to act. charge the insured with knowledge that he alone represented it. May v. Western Assurance Co., 15 Ins. L. J. 545; 27 Fed. Rep. 260. 172. An agent may still bind the company, notwithstanding his resignation, if he continues to supervise the work of his successor with knowledge and consent of the company. Ganser v. Firemen's Fund Ins. Co., 38 Minn. 74; 17 Ins. L. J. 105. 173. The authority of an agent was contained in two letters, one from the general agent and the other from the company's secretary, both mailed before the making of the contract, but not received until after the fire. Held, the authority dated from the mailing of the letters. *Ruggles V. American Central Ins. Co., 114 N. Y. 415. 174.- When a policy in express terms provides that no part of its conditions shall be waived, except in writing, signed by the secretary, it operates as an effect Restriction as to Territory. ive restriction upon an agent's authority; and recognition of these acts by the coma verbal consent by agent to vacancy pany. Day v. Mechanics' & T. Ins. Co., after issue and acceptance of the policy 4 West. Rep. 614; 88 Mo. 325. does not bind the company. *O'Brien v. Prescott Ins. Co., 31 N. East. Rep. 265; rev'g, 11 N. Y. Supp. 125; 32 N. Y. S. Rep. 579; following Walsh v. Hartford Ins. Co., 73 N. Y. 5; compare Lamberton v. Connecticut Ins. Co., 39 Minn. 129; 18 Ins. L. J. 473; Wilkin v. State Ins. Co., 43 Minn. 177; 20 Ins. L. J. 478; 45 N. W. Rep. 1. 174a.- Agent authorized to receive payment of premium cannot accept anything but money-setting off of debts by agent held not good. Frazer v. Gore District Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2 Ont. 416 (Can.); Citizens' Ins. Co. v. Bourgingnon, 2 Mont. Q. B. 22 (Can.) 175.- Where a married woman has a valid title to property, the fact of her coverture is not material to the risk on a policy of insurance; and private instructions by the insurance company to its agent, not communicated to her, forbidding him to insure property in the hands of married women, will not affect her rights. Queen Ins. Co. v. Young, 86 Ala. 424; 5 So. Rep. 116. 180.- Where the act of incorporation of an insurance company does not restrict the company to contracts evidenced by policies, the company is bound by the act of an agent who has been in its employ and sanctioned by it for years, in receiving a premium upon expiration of a policy, and representing to the assured that it would continue in force for another year. *Zell v. Herman Farmers' Mut. Ins. Co., 75 Wis. 521; 44 N. W. Rep. 828. 181.- A local insurance agent having ostensible general authority to solicit applications and make contracts for insurance and to receive first premiums binds his principal by any acts or contracts within the general scope of his apparent authority, notwithstanding an actual excess of authority. *Farnum v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 83 Cal. 246; 23 Pac. Rep. 869. 182.- As to third parties, in the absence of notice to the contrary, the agent of an insurance company should be regarded as possessing all the powers his occupation fairly imports to the public. *Phonix Ins. Co. v. Spiers, 87 Ky. 285; 8 S. W. Rep. 453; *Brownfield v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 26 Mo. App. 390. 183.- Parties dealing with insurance agents as to matters within the real or 176.— A fire insurance agent receiving from the assured an application for a change in a policy of insurance, and undertaking to procure such change, is to be treated as the agent of the assured, and not of the company. Hence an alter-apparent scope of their agency are not ation by himself, without authority from the company, will not bind the latter, in the absence of a showing that such alteration is within the scope of his authority as agent. Duluth Nat. Bank v. Knoxville F. Ins. Co., 85 Tenn. 76; 4 Am. St. Rep. 744; 1 S. W. Rep. 689. 177. The assured is not bound by private instructions to the agent, not known to him. Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. State, ex rel. Smith, 13 West. Rep. 47; 113 Ind. 331; 15 N. East. Rep. 158. affected by limitations upon their powers, unless they have notice of them. *California Ins. Co. v. Gracey, 15 Colo. 70; 20 Ins. L. J. 28; 24 Pac. Rep. 577. 184.- Express authority to an agent of an insurance company to receive proposals for insurance in, and in the vicinity of, a certain place, fix rates, receive premiums, countersign, issue, renew, and consent to the transfer of policies, make indorsements thereon, or vary the risk,— empowers him to act concerning a policy 178. That one of the trustees of a previously taken by another agent empowbuilding insured agreed with the insur-ered to act at a neighboring place and ance agent that he should place insurance vicinity. *St. Paul F. and M. Ins. Co. v. does not make such agent the agent of Parsons, 50 N. W. Rep. 240; 21 Ins. L. J. the trustee. Id. 179. The authority of an insurance agent to make a modification of the contract of insurance may be inferred from the course of dealing with the insured, 72; 47 Minn. 352. 185. Restriction as to territory. When an agent in violation of his instructions, issues a policy covering property outside of his district the company may Agent of One Company Transacting Business With Another. either ratify or disavow; but the disa vowal must be prompt and notice of it must be given to the assured, or the company will be deemed to have ratified the policy. Mohr v. Ohio Ins. Co., 13 Fed. Rep. 74. See No. 135. 186.- An agent assigned to a certain territory and entrusted with blank policies and authorized to insure by countersigning the same is a general agent for said territory and an applicant is not bound to inquire as to the precise instructions he has received. Id. 187.- Notice by a company to the clerk of a local insurance agent not to take risks in a certain business block, and entered in the agent's Block Book," is sufficient to put him upon inquiry and therefore binding upon him, though not accurately entered by his clerk. *Hanover F. Ins. Co. v. Ames, 39 Minn. 150. 188. Agent of one company transacting business with another. It is were unoccupied operates as a waiver of the condition in regard thereto. Alkan v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 53 Wis. 1:36: 11 Ins. L. J. 126. 191. Agents of companies in placing or applying for insurance in other companies, not represented by them, must still be regarded as the agents of such other companies and not of the insured. McGraw v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. 657; 54 Mich. 146. 192. An agent representing several companies can not, having issued policy in one, substitute another without consent of insured; nor can he do it even with such consent after a loss. Wilson v. New Hampshire Fire Ins. Co., 16 Ins. L. J. 408; 1 N. East. Rep. 569; 140 Mass. 210. 193. An agent who places a surplus. line of insurance in other companies than those represented by him, can not be regarded as the agent of the insured; his knowledge binds such other companies. no part of an agent's duty to his com- May v. Western Assurance Co., 15 Ins. L. pany to look after insurance of other per- J. 545; 27 Fed. Rep. 260. And see Union sons, and all that he does in that way, Ins. Co. v. Murphy, 15 Ins. L. J. 548; 2 beyond what relates to insurance in his Cent. Rep. 540; 17 W. N. C. 243 (Pa.); Mulown company in the usual course of busi-lin v. Vermont Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 15 ness and for premiums paid, is outside of Ins. L. J. 561 (Vt.) his official character. As an insurance broker he represents the insured and not the insurer. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 36 Mich. 502. 194. An agent representing several companies cannot after a loss, substitute the policy of one company for the other on the loss at time it occurred. Lancashire Fire Ins. Co. v. Nill, 16 Ins. L. J. 309; 4 Cent. Rep. 294; 114 Pa. 248. 189.- Agent unable to take risk in any company represented by him, applied to another agent and obtained policy of 195.- When an agent makes a verbal defendant and delivered it to the assured. contract to insure in one of the comAt time of delivery of the policy the for- | panies represented by him, the selection mer knew and consented to other insur-being left to him, the designation of the ance. The latter agent had no knowledge particular company, is essential to comof the other insurance, and policy con-plete the contract. If terms are altered tained no consent. Held, by statute of and company rejects the risk, there is no Wisconsin (R. S. sec. 1,977), that the agent contract and matter terminates. Sheldon who obtained and delivered the policy v. Heckla Fire Ins. Co., 15 Ins. L. J. 622; was the agent of the defendant, and that 65 Wis. 436. his knowledge and consent to other insurance bound the defendant, and that the defendant was estopped from claiming a forfeiture on ground of the other insurSchomer v. Hekla Fire Ins. Co., 10 Ins. L. J. 306; 50 Wis. 575. ance. 190.- An agent who places a risk in company not represented by him, is nevertheless under the Wisconsin statute an agent of such company in respect to the insurance. His knowledge that premises 196. Where the agent of a defendant insurer was also agent of another company, and had been given authority by plaintiff to keep his property insured in such companies as he might select, and the policy held by plaintiff in the latter company was canceled, a policy thereupon issued in defendant company by such agent, and placed by him in his safe for plaintiff, forms a binding contract. Dibble v. Northern Assur. |