The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1897-06-26


the point upon which the really hinges. 1t Is without
difficulty There
IT argued that action for negligence would lie
If the application had been pgeonhoed by the defendant ITSELF
and that principal be held liable omission
of its agent if it could be held similar omission
OF IT. own need the question
whether insurance company would De liable for neg
gence in failing upon application within reasonable
time, IN the application had made directly the
company had been forwarded by agent 1t may be
that the company would be bound accept reject the
application within reasonable time But concedne for the DUR
pose would be liability such
the present be distinguished from it, The company
judiciay in passing upon application, the agent
Enthusiastically in forwarding it. Further the of the
the company itself could lie guilty Of negligence fail
forward application the that there could be
forwarding all when the company had received the
aPPhcalon II true the company beng corporation can act
only through officers but the directors
managers the home office represent the company very
different that which agents solicit
only through officers agents constitutes for holding
it to a er responsibility for the acts of its agents would
otherwise be necessary. As between parethe
pany and the applicant the loss due to the neg
gence of third partythe agentfall upon the company
which selected the agent and held him worthy of rs
Should principal suffer for the negligence of his agent
rather than the whose has been induced by such
agent acting within the scope of his authority Does app
cant acquire no rights by making application, submitting 10
examination making deposit and forbearng obtain
other insurance. the faith induced by the agent that the
application would be duly forwarded and passed upon! May
the company with mpunity through Its directors, at least
through Its soliciting receive application and depo
and take action whatever! Those engaged in the nsur
action in such If they should for risk they
should msead applicant believing that they would
upon his application and him delay apply
other company To hold the company liable III this
effect hold equity holds that that which ought to
done The effect place both parties
the they would have been there had been
no negligence-not company liable for damages
negligence but hold liability that would
have existed if there had been negligence As above stated
there decisions upon the point question In Sed
HeuetiG ms Co., 102 Cal 21S cited by defendant the agent
failed forward application for renewal of fire insurance
the loss The held that while this might
the agent liable plaintiff for the damage sustained by
growing of such neglect did have the effect to
binding for renewal between the applicant
In that the action contract not
here for the negligence The court however, ntl
mated might lie for the negligence against the
agent other words that there duty forward
T,nsk H. German ms. Co., Mo. App 625, would
be Judge from its digest Gen.
Dig Tit ms Secs 81 376. In Walker Farmers ms Co..
81 Ia go defendant the failed forward
application for fire insurance until after the loss The trial
Judge the opinion that the company liable for such
negligence agent and charged the jury that IF find
that said agent neglected forward such application for eee
ton approval within reasonable time, considering all the
circumstances defendant be held liable for
loss occaoned bv neglect On appeal the Supreme Court
held that though might be correct law,
inappcabe that because the action brought on the
and for the negligence The court SAID; IL may
be but the point decide that defendant liable for
contemplated this instruction. but
in order 70 recover for such negligence be based
thereon" Perkins 4. Washington Ins Co., Cow, 645
plaintiffs the authorized not merely to re-
and forward applications this but to make con-
tracts of insurance however, only when the
should be paid and should be received at New York
and provided the office should recognize the rate OF premium
and satisfied with the risk. The agent made such
contract the premium received at New DIRK until
after loss Just according to plaintiffs theory IN the
present case agent retained the application order that he
might batch and the declined the risk
without considering its merits but because had already been
Informed applicants DEATH in the New York the
agent retained premium in order that he might send
together and the declined the risk
without considering merits but because had already learned
The suit in equity and based contract
object being compel either OF the amount agreed
insured execution of the policy Chancellor Kent held
that the company liable appeal his decision
reversed by of Errors in opinions by Woodworth j.
and Golden Senator need into the grounds upon
which the Chancellor and the Appellate Court differed They
related principally the question whether the could
made bv