Opinion ID: 1492035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: .Standard Company Policy 401,844

Text: Parties to an insurance contract may stipulate in the application or in the policy that the policy shall not take effect or that the insurer shall not become liable thereunder until the premium is paid. Such a condition is valid and enforceable, MacKelvie v. Mutual Benefit L. I. Co. (C. C. A. 2) 287 F. 660, 663; Curtis v. Prudential I. Co. (C. C. A. 4) 55 F. (2d) 97, 99; New York L. I. Co. v. McCreary (C. C. A. 8) 60 F.(2d) 355; Wells v. Prudential I. Co., 239 Mich. 92, 214 N. W. 308; Reagan v. Philadelphia L. I. Co., 165 Minn. 186, 206 N. W. 162, and a compliance therewith or waiver thereof, even though the policy has been delivered, is essential to render the contract binding and operative with respect to the insurance coverage, Ætna L. I. Co. v. Johnson (C. C. A. 8) 13 F.(2d) 824; Reagan v. Insurance Co., supra; Union Central L. I. Co. v. Taggart, 55 Minn. 95, 56 N. W. 579, 43 Am. St. Rep. 474; Mutual Res. Fund L. Assn. v. Simmons (C. C. A. 1) 107 F. 418; Etenburn v. Metropolitan L. I. Co., 118 Okl. 55, 246 P. 383; Perry v. Security Life & A. Co., 150 N. C. 143, 63 S. E. 679; Penn Mutual L. I. Co. v. Blount, 33 Ga. App. 642, 127 S. E. 892; Bowen v. Mutual L. I. Co., 20 S. D. 103, 104 N. W. 1040, 1044; Turlington v. Metropolitan L. I. Co., 193 N. C. 481, 137 S. E. 422; Boston Forwarding & T. Co. v. Contractors' Mut. Liability I. Co., 226 Mass. 372, 115 N. E. 494. In such a case the contract, though in form executed by the parties and delivered, does not spring into life to the extent that an insurance coverage liability attaches until the performance of the condition. Hurt v. N. Y. Life I. Co. (C. C. A. 10) 53 F.(2d) 453, 454. Here the Standard Company and Reynolds, acting through his agent Holland, had stipulated that the policy should not become effective or be delivered until the premium had been paid in cash. As between them the contract of insurance clearly never became effective. Did it become effective as between the Standard Company and the state of Oklahoma for the benefit of persons who might suffer personal injuries or damage to property caused by the negligence of Reynolds, his agents, or employees? Form E constitutes the contract of insurance between the insurer and the state of Oklahoma for the benefit of the public. Form E attached to original policy 401,844 was not signed by the Standard Company or by R. B. Hickman as its agent. It is plainly contemplated that form E shall be signed by the insurer, as a designated space is provided therefor. Ordinarily the purpose of a signature to a written contract is to show consent to be bound thereby. It is the customary way of manifesting assent to a written instrument. But where a signature is not required by statute or by express provision of the agreement, assent may be shown in other ways. Henderson v. Henderson, 136 Iowa, 564, 114 N. W. 178, 179; Ramsay Realty Co. v. Ramsay, 135 Iowa, 612, 113 N. W. 468; Vogel v. Pekoe, 157 Ill. 339, 42 N. E. 386, 30 L. R. A. 491; Sellers v. Greer, 172 Ill. 549, 50 N. E. 246, 40 L. R. A. 589; Reno Electrical Works v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 43 Nev. 191, 183 P. 386; Sammons v. Patterson, 127 Or. 11, 270 P. 499. The policy proper was signed and form E was attached thereto. If the policy had been delivered to the commission, and if it had treated the policy as in force and effect and acted in reliance on that fact, the absence of the signature of the insurer on form E might not have prevented the contract from binding the Standard Company. Was original policy 401,844 filed with the commission? A paper is filed when it is delivered to the proper officer and received by him to be kept on file. United States v. Lombardo, 241 U. S. 73, 36 S. Ct. 508, 60 L. Ed. 897; Edward Sales Co. v. Harris Structural Steel Co. (D. C. Me.) 17 F.(2d) 155; Yates v. Tatum, 60 Colo. 484, 155 P. 328; Covington v. Fisher, 22 Okl. 207, 97 P. 615; Wescott v. Eccles, 3 Utah, 258, 2 P. 525; Gallagher v. Linwood, 30 N. M. 211, 231 P. 627, 37 A. L. R. 664. The evidence of receipt by the proper official was slight. It rested wholly on the fact that filing No. 1732 was on the original policy, and the testimony of Holland that such number was not thereon when it was placed on Patton's desk. As against this there was testimony of Patton and M. B. Hickman that they did not place the filing number thereon; that they had never seen and had no knowledge of such policy, and the further testimony of M. B. Hickman that the policy would not have been accepted for filing with form E unsigned. But, if there was sufficient evidence of filing to submit that issue to the jury, the court in defining filing in its charge wholly omitted the element of receipt for filing by the proper officer. It instructed the jury in substance that if the agent of the Standard Company delivered the policy to Holland, and if Holland left the policy with the commission for filing, that it then became a legal obligation of the Standard Company. This was error. If the policy had not been legally filed when R. B. Hickman recovered it from Patton's desk, he had the right to repossess it, because Holland had undertaken to file it with the commission in violation of his express agreement with R. B. Hickman that it should not become effective or be delivered until the premium had been paid in full. If the policy had been filed with the commission and if the commission, believing it had been properly delivered and filed, had acted in reliance thereon, the Standard Company might have been estopped to deny that such policy was in force and effect, because R. B. Hickman by leaving the policy in Holland's office, placed it in the latter's power to deceive and mislead the commission into so believing and acting. But the commission did not rely or act upon such assumption. Employees of the commission, charged with the handling of such matters, testified as witnesses for plaintiffs that the commission had no knowledge of policy 401,844, and had not relied or acted thereon. We conclude that the court should have directed a verdict in favor of the Standard Company.