Court Opinion

ID: 9560544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:50:57.22604+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:12:09.385740
License: Public Domain

Upon Fetition for Rehearing.

Staunton, September 23, 1937.
Per Curiam:
In the petition for rehearing it is earnestly contended that *662the former opinion filed on June 10, 1937, is in error in stating that the record fails to show what information was furnished to the Insurance Company by the assured on the basis of which the policy was issued. The petition points out that Savery testified that in his letter to Houts & Company he enclosed “the necessary forms to be used on the policy,” and insists that these “forms” were completely filled out when they left Savery’s hands, were subsequently attached to the policy, and contained all the information and representations relied on.
Whether the “forms” as actually written by Savery were attached to the policy does not clearly appear from the record. Savery did not so testify. Harris, the assistant secretary of the company, on direct examination indicated that they were. But on cross-examination he plainly showed that he had no actual knowledge of this; that the policy had been signed in blank by him and previously deposited with a New Jersey agent; that he (Harris) had not seen the completed policy.
But even assuming that the “forms” on the completed policy were the same as prepared by Savery, this would not change the conclusion arrived at by us. Both Savery and the assured testified that Savery had, at the time the “forms” were filled out by him, full and correct information concerning each and every matter which the Insurance Company claims was misrepresented to it in the “forms.” Therefore, for the reasons stated in our former opinion, the Insurance Company is estopped to rely upon such misstatements of which Savery, its agent, was fully cognizant.
Upon careful consideration of all of the questions presented by the petition the rehearing is denied.