Court Opinion

ID: 7937309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-08 23:10:59.127154+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:33:35.301078
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.
I concur with my Brother Hooker in the reversal of this case. I also concur with his statement that—
“ Forfeitures and penalties are not favored in the law, and the language should not be unnecessarily extended by construction. The provision for a forfeiture of rights under the policy is doubtless a wise one, to prevent deceit on the part of insured persons; but it does not seem to us necessary, where the insured acts in good faith, and is not a party to the deceit.”
Did the facts in this case make the plaintiff a party to the deceit? This, of course, depends upon the determination of the question, whether the acts of her agent were in fact her acts. It will be conceded that if she made false and fraudulent representations the policy was rendered void. I cannot assent to the rule that, where one trusts the entire management of his business to an agent, the principal is not responsible for the fraudulent acts and representations of the agent in connection with the business. It is manifest from this record that the plaintiff knew nothing about the business. It was carried on in her name. Grant that it was carried on for her benefit, still she constituted her husband her sole agent to buy and sell, attend to the insurance, and exercise exclusive control and management of the entire business. When the adjusters came to adjust the loss, he appeared as her sole representative. The defendant desired that he should obtain from the plaintiff a written authority to act for her. She voluntarily executed a power of attorney giving him full authority in the premises. She should be held responsible *342for his acts and conduct. Seldom do the records of insurance litigation exhibit a more deliberate and glaring attempt to defraud an insurance company. Such attempts should not be made successful, under the guise of agency, especially where there exists the intimate relation of husband and wife; the one claiming to be an innocent principal, and the other a confessedly dishonest agent.
The’ judgment should be reversed, and no new trial ordered.