Court Opinion

ID: 9793944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:55:32.362806+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:08:36.184839
License: Public Domain

Neill, J.
(dissenting)—I dissent. The receipt given to Mr. Barber is express and crystal clear to the effect that no insurance would go into effect until the application was approved and policy issued at the home office. Absent deceit, fraud or overreaching by the insurer, I would hold the applicant bound to have known the words that were before his eyes and in his possession. Assuming the truth of the facts alleged by plaintiff, they do not depict a situation of deceit, fraud or overreaching, in view of the notice given the applicant by delivery of the receipt. Delivery of the receipt distinguishes this , case from Fanning v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 59 Wn.2d 101, 104, 366 P.2d 207 (1961), wherein nondelivery of a “conditional binding receipt” was held to give no notice of its contents. The majority ignores the impact of the fact that, here, the receipt was delivered and thus gave notice. The alleged “apparent authority,” even if found to have initially existed, could not have survived this notice of the agent’s limitations. Fanning v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, supra at 104-05. This case is therefore within the rule precluding an agent’s authority to impose immediate coverage where the application (and, here, the receipt) provides that there is to be no insurance until home office acceptance. Basinsky v. National Cas. Co., 122 Wash. 1, 209 P. 1077 (1922).
*146Plaintiff’s tactual allegations, if true, would not avoid the law in defendant’s favor. Thus, there is no material issue of fact. I would affirm the trial court.
Stafford, J., concurs with Neill, J.
Petition for rehearing denied October 26, 1972.