Court Opinion

ID: 9610577
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:43:24.702928+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:02.015292
License: Public Domain

WOLFE, Chief Justice
(concurring).
I concur. In this case, what difference does it make in the last analysis whether Bowman was the agent of plaintiff or *120of defendants or a broker or such a go-between as to be the agent of both by being at various times the agent of one or the other, if it is true as is held in the latter part of the opinion, and I think correctly, that the description of “skating rink” was merely for the purpose of identifying the building and that there were no material concealments or misrepresentations. .
If the companies intended to insure the building identified as a skating rink, and if the fact that part of this sectional building had collapsed and was stored in the remaining part of the building was not a material concealment, then an instruction that Bowman was the agent of defendants so that his knowledge conveyed by plaintiff was the knowledge of defendants, is immaterial and certainly unprejudiced. Even if, in law, knowledge of Bowman cannot be imputed to the defendants, they intended to and did insure against loss by fire of the structure identified as a skating rink. And they were not deceived in any material matter, nor was there concealment as to any material matter. They received the compensation as demanded for such insurance. What more is required to find against them in this case? While there are other grounds justifying the judgment, they are more technical in nature. The above is the heart of the matter.
LATIMER, Justice, concurs in the results.