Case Name: SPENCE v. PHŒNIX ASSUR. CO., LTD., OF LONDON
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1916-06-28
Citations: 104 S.C. 403
Docket Number: 9427
Parties: SPENCE v. PHŒNIX ASSUR. CO., LTD., OF LONDON.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 104
Pages: 403–405

Head Matter:
9427
SPENCE v. PHŒNIX ASSUR. CO., LTD., OF LONDON.
(89 S. E. 319.)
Insurance — Forfeiture—Waiver.—Failure of insurer after a fire to return the premium, or the unearned portion thereof, in accordance with the provisions of the policy providing for return in case the policy should become void, is evidence of waiver of the forfeiture.
Before Rice, J., Chester, October, 1915.
Reversed.
Action by Willie .Spence against the Phcenix Assurance Company, Limited, of London. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.
Messrs. Marion & Marion, for appellant,
cite: As to notice and estoppel: 102 S. C. 311; Civil Code, sec. 3550. And as to waiver of forfeiture: 102 S. C. 115-121; 102 S. C. 381; 68 S. C. 392; 78 S. E. 443.
Messrs. DePass & DePass, for respondent,
ask the Court to review 102 S. C. 115, and' cite: 16 N. Y. St. Rep. 342; 1 N. Y. Suppl. 31; 18 Pa. Sup. Ct. 148; 150 Cal. 510; 10 R. R. A. (N. S.) 879; 90 Miss. 642; 15 R. R. A. (N. S.) 471 ; 44 So. 162; 70 S. C. 80; 68 S. C. 391; 14 Fed. 143; 48 Hun. 619. Effect of acceptance of policy by insured, binds him to warranties therein expressed: Cooley Ins. Briefs 1150; 65 Fed. 165; 27 R. R. A. 614; 12 App. D. C. 245; 40 R. R. A. 358. Promissory representations as warranties: See Cooley Ins. Briefs 1466, 1172 and 1482; 24 N. H. 259; 32 Mo. App. 302; 68 Iowa 578; 56 Am. Rep. 865; 22 Mich. 467; 7 Am. Rep. 670; 90 Tenn. 212. Burden of proof as. to waiver: 88,S. C. 22. Legal issue: 75 S. C. 201; 79 S. C. 383. Issue for Court: Code Civil Proc., sec. 312. Recording as notice: Ciyil Code, secs. 3542, 3550; 45 S. C. 518; Bidde Ins., sec. 671; 98 Ga. 564; 25 S. E. 565; 18 Mo. 26; 12 Ind. App. 145; 12 N. E. 757; Cooley’s'Ins. Briefs, 1368; 90 Iowa 4; 57 N. W. 632. Plaintiffs neglect to know terms of contract: 26 S. C. 91; 9 S. C. 41; 91 S. C. 45; 118 N. C. 738; 24 S. E, 538; 78 S. C. 422, 423 ; 62 S. C. 12. Failure to cancel policy and return premium after loss: 102 S. C. 115; 70 S. C. 82.
June 28, 1916.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. ChiEE Justice Gary.
This is an action upon a standard policy of fire insurance; and the question presented by the exceptions, is whether the defendant's failure after the fire to return the premium of insurance, or the unearned portion thereof, in accordance with the provisions of the policy, was evidence of waiver.
His Honor, the presiding Judge, ruled that such failure did not tend to show waiver, and accordingly directed a verdict in favor of the defendant. The respondent's attorneys were granted permission to review 'the case of Scott v. Insurance Co., 102 S. C. 115, 86 S. E. 484.
The Court adheres to the decision in. that case, which is conclusive of this appeal.
Tudgment reversed.