Violette v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania

Citations

• 92 Wash. 685
• 159 P. 896
• 1916 Wash. LEXIS 824

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Agents—Authority—“Ostensible Agency” — Estoppel to Deny. . Where all the business of a licensed insurance agent, M. P. H., had been delegated to, and transacted in her name by, her husband, C. E. H., who was personally known to the company as “Gene” H., supposing him to be M. P. H., he had ostensible authority to act as agent and the company, having so dealt with him for a term of years, is estopped to deny his authority, through a lack of care in its mistake as to his identity.</p> <p>Same — Regulation — Issuance op Policy — Countersigning. 3 Rem. & Bal. Code, § 6059-36, providing that it shall be unlawful for an insurance company to write a policy unless countersigned by its duly authorized agent does not necessarily avoid a policy not signed by the duly licensed agent, as the statute does not avoid the policy by express terms and was intended as a restriction on insurance companies.</p> <p>Same — Policy—Cancellation—Waiver of Notice. The five-day written notice of cancellation of an insurance policy provided by statute is waived by the insured, where he assented to its cancellation provided the risk was rewritten in another company, which was done; and it is immaterial that the policy was not surrendered at the time, where he did not have it with him and agreed to surrender it as soon as he returned from a trip upon which he was starting.</p> <p>Appeal — Decision—New Tbial. Upon reversing a judgment of dismissal upon granting a nonsuit, a new trial must he granted, where the answer presented an issue of fact.</p>