Court Opinion

ID: 9743787
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:43:07.429499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:43.411078
License: Public Domain

BURMAN, P. J., dissenting: The principal issue raised by this appeal is whether an insurance agent should be held liable on his contract to procure insurance to the same extent as an insurer on the basis of parole evidence as against the written documents exchanged between the parties. From the documents involved in the transaction in question, it is clear that Ronald Jackson, the would-be insured, would not be covered by the automobile insurance policy for which he had paid $10 on account until a written binder or policy was issued and delivered. Language expressing such a condition was stamped both on the face of the receipt which Ronald received on December 11, 1956', when the first discussion took place, and again on the face of the letter which Ronald received several days later. The condition recited: The Insurance For "Which You Have Applied For Which This Is A Payment On Account Is Not Effective Until A Written Binder Or Policy Is Issued And Delivered Furthermore, it is clear from the letter which Ronald received that delivery of the policy was in turn conditioned upon payment of the full amount of the down payment of $35.40. The letter stated that: The down payment required was $35.40 towards which you have paid $10.00 leaving a balance which must be paid as follows: By Dec. 31,1956 $25.40 .... [W]hen the final payment has been made yonr policy will be mailed to you. I believe that these provisions, when considered together, conditioned the agent’s agreement to obtain effective insurance coverage for Ronald on delivery of the binder or policy, which in turn was conditioned on full payment of the $35.40 down payment. I do not believe that any other language contained in these documents creates any ambiguity either about the effective date of the policy or about the nature of the agent’s contract to procure insurance. The notation “12/11/56” which was written under the printed words “Date of Contract” on the receipt does not, in my opinion, indicate the effective date of the insurance policy; rather it indicates the date on which the payment on account was received and on which the contract to procure insurance was made. Other language in the letter welcoming Ronald to the “family of protected and satisfied policy holders,” offering assistance if Ronald needed help with premium payment problems, and stating the date on which the insurance was “ordered,” deals only indirectly and inferentially with the effective date of the policy. That language does not, in my opinion, create an ambiguity in the face of the language quoted above which directly and specifically states the conditions precedent to obtaining an effective policy. In my opinion, the written documents clearly state that the remittance of the full down payment of $35.40 and delivery of a binder or a policy were conditions precedent to the agent’s obligation under his contract to obtain an effective policy of insurance, and that this was understood and agreed to by the parties. Indeed, Ronald knew he was not covered by the insurance until he remitted the full amount because he claims that he called the agent’s office upon receipt of the letter to find ont whether he was insured. In the face of these unambiguous, written documents, I do not believe that the conversations between the parties concerning the effective date of the policy-can be considered in order to establish a contract which is different from that which is unambiguously expressed in the written agreement. The object of construction of a contract is to ascertain the intention which the parties have expressed in the language of the contract, and where there is no ambiguity in the terms used, the instrument itself is the only criterion of the intent of the parties. Abingdon Bank & Trust Co. v. Bulkeley, 390 Ill 582, 62 NE2d 447; Lewis v. Real Estate Corp., 6 Ill App2d 240, 127 NE2d 272; Chicago Land Clearance Comm. v. Jones, 13 Ill App2d 554, 142 NE2d 800; Belanger v. Seay & Thomas, Inc., 28 Ill App2d 266, 171 NE2d 418. It is uncontroverted that prior to the accident Ronald did not pay the full amount of the $35.40 down payment which accounts for the fact that he did not receive either a binder or a policy. Hence, under the clear terms of the agent’s agreement to obtain insurance, the conditions precedent to his duties under the contract were not met and the agent should not be held liable as an insurer for an amount which, under the policy, could total as much as $20,000. I do not believe that the agent unconditionally accepted this large risk for a consideration of only $10; he agreed to obtain insurance coverage only on payment of $35.40, of which the $10 which Ronald remitted was only a payment on account. It appears that the agent was making every effort to obtain a policy for Ronald, an eighteen-year-old boy who the agent had turned down on a previous occasion because he did not meet the underwriting requisites. However, the agent agreed to obtain insurance for Ronald only on the explicit understanding that Ronald pay the full down payment and that he would have effective insurance coverage only upon receipt of a hinder or policy. These conditions were unambiguously expressed in the written contract and subsequent parole evidence, particularly concerning Ronald’s telephone conversation with an unidentified person in the agent’s office, should not he heard to alter these clear conditions. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the trial court.