Carroll v. Garlington-Hardwick Co.

2 Citing cases

  1. Independent Life c. Co. v. Pantone

    56 S.E.2d 153 (Ga. Ct. App. 1949)   Cited 7 times
    Holding life insurance policy had lapsed for nonpayment of premiums, and therefore beneficiary was not entitled to death proceeds after insured died, where policy required evidence of insurability for reinstatement and provided that “reinstatement shall not become effective ... except that at the time of such payment the insured is alive and in sound health”

    When such a showing is not made, the plain and unambiguous words of a forfeiture clause of a policy must be given their reasonable intendment and, the forfeiture having already taken place, the agent would be without authority to bind his principal by any waiver thereof. See Carroll v. Garlington Hardwick Co., 79 Ga. App. 708 ( 54 S.E.2d 441); Life Casualty Ins. Co. v. McLeod, 70 Ga. App. 181 ( 27 S.E.2d 871); Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Muller, 63 Ga. App. 327 ( 11 S.E.2d 92); Thurmond v. Sovereign Camp W. O. W., 171 Ga. 453 ( 155 S.E. 760); Hutson v. Prudential Life Ins. Co., 122 Ga. 847 ( 50 S.E. 1000); Reese v. Fidelity Mutual Life Assn., 111 Ga. 482 ( 36 S.E. 637); Graham v. Niagara Fire Ins. Co., 106 Ga. 840 ( 32 S.E. 579); Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Griffin, 30 Ga. App. 217 ( 117 S.E. 261); Finleyson v. Liverpool Ins. Co., 16 Ga. App. 51 ( 84 S.E. 311); Plumer v. Continental Casualty Co., 12 Ga. App. 594 ( 77 S.E. 917). It would therefore appear that there must be some showing that the company had knowledge of the facts, or of some affirmative act upon its part, before a waiver could be assumed from the act of an agent which was beyond the scope of his authority and in violation of the written provisions of the contract, other than the mere acceptance of the premium by the agent, which under the te

  2. Westmoreland v. General Accident F. L. Assurance

    144 Conn. 265 (Conn. 1957)   Cited 37 times
    In Westmoreland v. General Accident F. L. Assurance Corporation, 144 Conn. 265, 270, 129 A.2d 623 (1957), the policy provided: "This policy may be canceled by the company by mailing to the named insured at the address shown in this policy written notice stating when not less than five days thereafter such cancellation shall be effective.

    He would not know whether he ought, in the meantime, to arrange for other insurance. See Putnam v. Deinhamer, supra; Carroll v. Garlingto-Hardwick Co., 79 Ga. App. 708, 54 S.E.2d 441. The plaintiff relies on Bessette v. Fidelity Casualty Co., 111 Conn. 549, 150 A. 706.