Hardwick v. State Insurance

Citations

• 23 Or. 290
• 31 P. 656
• 1892 Ore. LEXIS 139

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance — Preliminary Contract.— Where an insurance company makes a preliminary oral contract for insurance, and agrees to issue a policy, but afterwards refuses to do so, the company, in an action against it for loss of the property by fire, can claim no exemptions from liability on account of any provision which the policy would have contained had it been issued.</p> <p>2. Nonsuit — Authority of Agent.— In an action against an insurance company for loss of property by fire, where it appears that defendant’s agent orally agreed to insure plaintiff, and to issue a policy at a future time, and that defendant afterwards refused to issue the policy, a nonsuit is properly refused where there is some evidence tending to show that the agent was acting within the apparent scope of his authority, and that plaintiff was ignorant of any limitations thereon.</p> <p>3. Contract for Insurance — Authority of Agent — In an action for the breach of an -oral contract for insurance made with an agent of defendant, testimony of persons as to transactions had by them with the agent as such, is competent as tending to show the manner in which he was held out by defendant as its agent, and the apparent scope of his authority.</p> <p>4. Contract for Insurance — Incumbrance on Property.— The fact that one who has made an oral contract for insurance with the company’s agent preliminary to the issuance of a policy afterwards gives a mortgage on the property, will not prevent his recovery for a loss, where the agent consented thereto.</p> <p>5. Verdict of Jury — Appeal — Conflicting Evidence.— Questions of fact upon conflicting evidence, as well as inferences which may reasonably he drawn from the facts proved, cannot be reviewed by an appellate court; they are settled by the verdict.</p>