Court Opinion

ID: 6544244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-19 22:18:16.851402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:55:55.346439
License: Public Domain

Hughes, J., (after stating the facts.) There was evidence in the case tending to show, and from which the jury might have found, that the appellee, W. P. Hale, made application to Gaylord, the local surveyor and agent of the appellant, the Phoenix Insurance Company, for renewal of his policy of insurance No. 6906; that he paid $19.50 to Gaylord, as a premium therefor; that he received the binding receipt of the company therefor, which was countersigned by Gaylord, the surveyor of the company; that Gaylord forwarded the said application to his company, and that the appellee, Hale, was not notified by said company that it declined to renew said policy, and that said premium of $19.50 paid by Hale to Gaylord was never returned to the appellee, Hale; that Hale believed his policy was renewed by the company, and that he never knew that the company claimed that it had not renewed his policy until after his barn, on which the original policy had been issued, was burned, and the company refused to pay the insurance on the ground that he had not renewed the policy of insurance. There is a square conflict of testimony as to the payment made, by Hale, the appellee, of the $19.50, and as to whether Hale was notified that his application was refused by the company. These were questions of fact, upon which the jury found in favor of the appellee, and their verdict as to the facts must be taken as correct by this court. Hid the facts, as found by the jury, constitute a contract of insurance upon which the appellee was entitled to recover? It seems to a majority of the court that they did. If the appellant received the $19.50 premium paid by the appellee when he made application for the renewal of his policy and received the application, and neither returned the money nor notified the appellee that they declined to renew his policy, we think they are as much bound as though the policy had been issued. It has been decided by this court that a contract of insurance may be effected by parol,—that it need not be in writing. King v. Cox, 63 Ark. 204, and cases cited. The cases of Armstrong v. Insurance Co., 61 Iowa, 216, and Barr v. Ins. Co. of North America, 61 Ind. 488, cited by appellant to support the contention that there was no contract of insurance in this case, are not like the case at bar in some material matters of fact. Affirmed.