Susq. Mut. Fire Ins. v. Elkins

Citations

• 124 Pa. 484
• 17 A. 24
• 1889 Pa. LEXIS 1053

Syllabus

<p>(a) A policy of insurance in a mutual company contained the conditions, inter alia: That the company should not be liable thereon until the premium should be actually paid; that nothing less than a specific agreement indorsed on the policy should be construed as a waiver of any printed or written condition therein; that payment of the premium.to any person, other than the duly appointed agent of the company, should be at the sole risk of the assured.</p> <p>(b) There was also a stipulation that the policy was made and accepted with reference to said conditions and to the by-laws of the company, “ which are hereby declared to be a part of this contract,” said by-laws providing, inter alia, that all agents should be appointed by the company under a certificate with the seal of the company affixed, without which no person should be authorized to act as such agent.</p> <p>1. In such case, although the by-laws are declared to be a part of the contract, yet they are not part of the printed or written conditions which could be waived only by a specific agreement indorsed on the policy, and being made for the sole protection of the company, the company was not bound to adhere to them.</p> <p>2. Wherefore, if the company authorized one, not in fact its duly appointed and commissioned agent, to deliver a policy and receive the premium thereon, adopting with him a course of dealing wholly inconsistent with its provisions, those provisions could not be set up to prevent a recovery on the policy.</p> <p>3. Marland v. Insurance Co.. 71 Pa. 393; Schaffer v. Insurance Co., 89 Pa. 296; Greene v. Insurance Co., 91 Pa. 387 ; Pottsville Mut. Ins. Co. v. Improvement Co., 100 Pa. 137, distinguished.</p>