Fair play., 1898-10-08
A Sound, COmmOn-sense Deci-

A Sound, Com Decf.
Few rulings of the State Supreme
Court have involved greater general
interest to the people Of Missouri than
the decision Of Judge WIN. G. Mar
shall in the Nickeli insurance case. In
this decision Judge Marshall brushes
aside tine technicalities behind which
insurance companies have 90 success
fully evsded responsibility, aud de-
cides the case on the broad principles
Of right, justice aud common sense.
In 1894 8. NJ. Nickel, . Linn Coun-
~ merchant lost his stock of goods
by fire. He carried q policy In the
Phoenix Insurance Company of Brook
lyu. The fire destroyed the entire
stock. A few dsys after the disaster
Nickel went to the local agent Of the
company who had taken the risk COL
lected the premium, and, iu fact +,
transacted all the business bet tw cen
Nickel and the company, and asked
for Information a. to how proceed in
notifying the company Of the loss
The agent told Nickel there wac no
necessity to make a proof of loss ;
that the company's adjuster would be
there in q few days and settle with
him. The adjuster failing to come,
Nickel again spoke to the local agent
and was again assured that it would
DO all right, and he wrote . letter to
the company, telling them Of the
loss, aud gave It to Nickel, who
mailed it. Failing to hear from the
company. Nickel finally employed M
attorney, who made out proof of loss
in proper form and forwarded it to
the Chicago Office, but not until after
the time specified In the policy for no
tice of loss had expired. The company
refused TO pay because the proofs of
loss were no: received within the so
days specified in the policy. Nickel
brought snit for the amount named
in the policy. The case went through
the Circuit Court and Kansas Ci,y
Court Of Appeals, and was taken to
the Supreme Court.
Judge Marshall wrote the opinion
of the Supreme Court.
In very full and elaborate opinion
he shows clearly that the powers of
The local agent are not limited to
''efiecting the insurance, counter
signing the policy, collecting the
premium, waiying forfeitures, ex
lending the time Of pay Of pre-.
niums and like which occur prior to
. loss, but that such local agent hus
he power TO represent the company
'fter loss when the benefits for " hich
he assured has paid in the shape OF
premiums are to flow from the com
'any to the assured, as well as before
he loss when the premiums flowed
rom the pockets of the assured into
he Golfers of the insurance company"
Judge Marshall further held ths,
uch local agent WAS a general agent,
nd not mere special agent having
'ower to act ouly when the company
Fas TO be benefited.
IL closing his opinion Judge Mar.
hall says: elf insurance comps-
les doubt the ability or honesty of
heir local agents to represent them
fter lose, they should distinctly pro.
ide in their policies to whom and
here the proofs OF loss should be
mt. The courts ought not to be
'ked to Indulge presumptious OF
ant of authority in said local agent
aid the compsuy iu technically
'oiding liability after the rich har {
est Of years of premiums has been
'rnered and enjoyed. The weigh,
authority, of analogy aud of
ason and justice supports the au- I.
ority Of such local agent to waive
oof Of loss, either in writing or by "
role, or by matters in pals which
Mount to an estoppel." ts
This case is the fret one OF lts kind
reach the Supreme Court. Judge L
ashsll's decision lays down q rule 4,
just aud fair that it cannot be cue. l.
'sfully attacked or criticized. L,
II effectively put q stop to the vexa. W
us delays and heavy Losses which y
ve 80 often been sustained by citi di
,s of this State who by reason OF a,
rs techuicality have been prevented 81
m collecting from the insurance =; r,
npanies the amounts Justly due a,
m. The people of Missouri are to dl
congratulated upon having this i'm.
'tant question set at rest in our
Ite.
CWughed 25 years. VI