Stickley v. Mobile Insurance

Citations

• 37 S.C. 56
• 16 S.E. 280
• 1892 S.C. LEXIS 48

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance Agents—Parol Contract.—The charter of án insurance company not prohibiting a parol contract'of insurance, the company is bound by such a contract, where its'local agent-received the money of the assured on the promise of a policy, and it not being shown that the assured knew of any restriction upon the agent’s powers in this regard.</p> <p>2. Proof of Loss—Waiver-tCommencement of Action.—Four days after a 'fire the assured gave notice of loss to the general agents of the insurer, and was asked by the agents in reply as to date and number of policy, but no further proof of loss was demanded. The assured then made out a proof of loss and forwarded it, and the company thereupon denied all liability. Afterwards, action on the contract was commenced within sixty days of the receipt of this-proof of loss, but more than sixty days after the receipt by the general agents of the first notice of loss. The trial judge having charged that the contract required sixty days to elapse after'the receipt of loss before action commenced, held., that the notice within four days was prompt enough, and that the denial of liability by the company was a waiver of any further proof than was contained in that notice. Mr. Chief Justice McIver dissenting.</p> <p>3. Charge on Facts.—The trial judge properly refused to charge that there ■ was not sufficient evidence to establish certain matters in issue, and that a certain letter was “notice of loss and not proof thereof, which was not sent until June 3,” as these matters were facts for the jury.</p> <p>4. Refusal of New Trial—Appeal.—No error of law being shown in the refusal by the trial judge of a new trial after verdict rendered, this court cannot interfere.</p> <p>5. Petition for Rehearing refused.</p>