Crescent Insurance v. Griffin & Shook

Citations

• 59 Tex. 509
• 2 Tex. L. R. 89
• 1883 Tex. LEXIS 214

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance.— A policy of insurance contained the following clause: “If the assured shall have or shall hereafter make, any other insurance con the property hereby insured, or any part thereof, without the consent of the company written hereon, . . . then and in every such case this policy shall be void.” Another insurance was effected on the same property without procuring the indorsement of consent on the first policy, but notice was given thereof to the agent of the com--’ pany, who had full discretion in the premises, and who made no objection to the additional insurance, said nothing about canceling the first policy, and did nothing to indicate a wish to do so. On the contrary, after knowing of the second insurance, the agent of the company in which the first insurance was effected took two risks on the same property in other companies represented by him. Held,</p> <p>(1) It was the right and duty of the first insurers to elect whether they would enforce the policy or abandon it, and to do this in a reasonable time and an unmistakable way.</p> <p>(2) Having by their silence induced the insured to believe the policy still in force, they were estopped from alleging the contrary when the attempt,was made' to enforce it against them; following Hayward v. National Ins. Co., 52 Mo., 181; Van Bories v. United Life, Fire and Marine Ins. Co., 8 Bush (Ky.), 133, and other cases cited.</p> <p>(3) To permit the company in which the insurance was first effected to take advantage of the breach communicated to it by the insured after a long acquiescence in it without objection, would be to permit the perpetration of a fraud. /</p>