Adler-Weinberger S. S. Co. v. Rothschild & Co.
Citations
- 123 F. 145
- 1903 U.S. App. LEXIS 3979
Syllabus
<p>1. Insurance—Liability of Agent for Foreign Company—Pennsylvania Statute.</p> <p>Act Pa. May 1, 1876 (P. L. 53, 66), § 48, which provides that “the agent of any insurance company of any other state or government, which does not comply with the laws of this commonwealth, shall be personally liable on all contracts of insurance made by or through him, directly or indirectly, for or in behalf of any such company,” relates to the carrying on of the business of insurance and the making of contracts within the state, without reference to the location of the property insured, and applies to contracts of marine insurance made through an agent within the state, although the vessel insured was not at the time within the state.</p> <p>3. Same—Estoppel to Deny Agency—Representations.</p> <p>Persons issuing policies of marine insurance on behalf of an insurance company, and afterward issuing slips or permits to be attached thereto, in which they described themselves as “agents,” are estopped to deny such agency, when it is sought to hold them liable as agents under a state statute.</p> <p>8 Same—Constitutionality of State Statute.</p> <p>A state statute, imposing a penalty for transacting business within the state as agent for a foreign insurance company which has not complied with the laws of the state, is not in violation of the Constitution of the United States, because it applies to contracts of insurance on property without, as well as within, the state.</p> <p>4. Same—Action against Agent—Limitation.</p> <p>Under Act Pa. May 1, 1876 (P. L. 53, 66), § 48, which makes the agent of any foreign insurance company which has not complied with the laws of the state personally liable on its contracts of insurance made by or through him, the liability of such an ■ agent is statutory, and not upon the policy, and a provision of the policy limiting the time for bringing an action thereon has no application to an action against the agent.</p> <p>¶ 4. See Insurance, vol. 28, Cent. Di
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- even though an insurance company prepared an incident report in response to a complaint, it was not protected because the insurer failed to show competent evidence that the report would not have been prepared in essentially the same form absent the litigation
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: McPherson
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.