It is a fundamental principal of the law of agency that the agent's knowledge is imputed to his principal. Bailey v. Gulf Insurance Co., 389 F.2d 889, 891 (10th Cir. 1968); A.A. Murphy, Inc. v. Banfield, 363 P.2d 942, 946 (Okla. 1961); Capps v. Whitegrass-Waterhole Flood Control and Soil Conservancy District, 359 P.2d 318, 321 (Okla.
On appeal, this court determined that liability had been established and reversed and remanded with directions to proceed to a determination solely on the question of the proper amount of damages. Bailey v. Gulf Insurance Co., 389 F.2d 889 (10th Cir. 1968). The present appeal by the insured is from the judgment of the trial court again rendered in favor of the insurance company.
The knowledge of Cole's attorneys about the eavesdropping was imputed to him. Bailey v. Gulf Insurance Co., 10 Cir., 389 F.2d 889 (1968); Eitel v. Schmidlapp, 4 Cir., 459 F.2d 609 (1972). It is unnecessary to discuss the last possible accrual date (August 22, 1970), because it presents some questions that are not involved in connection with the other beginning dates.
Notice to NSL's statutory agent was notice to NSL.E.g., Bailey v. Gulf Ins. Co., 389 F.2d 889, 891 (10th Cir. 1968) ("The general rule is that knowledge of an agent obtained within the scope of his authority is ordinarily imputed to his principal.").
The Oklahoma Supreme Court held in Tiger v. Verdigris Valley Electric Cooperative, 2016 OK 74, ΒΆ 16, 410 P.3d 1007, 1012, that "the knowledge or notice possessed by an agent while acting within the scope of authority is the knowledge of, or notice to the principal." In Bailey v. Gulf Insurance Co., 389 F.2d 889, 891 (10th Cir. 1968), the general rule was stated that "knowledge of an agent obtained within the scope of his authority is ordinarily imputed to his principal." Motors Ins. Corp. v. Freeman, 304 P.2d 328, 330 (Okla.
That conclusion failed to consider that the knowledge or notice possessed by an agent while acting within the scope of authority is the knowledge of, or notice to the principal. Bailey v. Gulf Ins. Co., 389 F.2d 889, 891 (10th Cir.1968). Thus, the lower courts' emphasis on the fact Employer was generally a "safety minded" organization and its safety record was good overall, was entirely misplaced.
When Sarah Coventry receives the orders from field agents in the New York office, it then has notice that the agents are regularly making direct sales and must either correct the practice or be bound by the acts of the agents and accept the benefits and burdens thereof, including compliance with the domestication and trade-name registration statutes of Oklahoma. Bailey v. Gulf Insurance Co., 389 F.2d 889, 891 (10th Cir. 1968).A.A. Murphy, Inc. v. Banfield, 363 P.2d 942, 946 (Okla. 1961).