Powell v. Insurance Company

39 Citing cases

  1. Williams v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.

    181 S.C. 344 (S.C. 1936)   Cited 16 times

    Action by O.T. Williams as administrator of the estate of B.B. Williams, Sr., deceased, against Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company and another. From the judgment rendered plaintiff and named defendant appeal. Messrs. Thomas, Lumpkin Cain and W.C. Wolfe, for appellant, Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co., cite: Directionof verdict: Sec. 592, Code 1932; 31 S.C. 204; 21 S.C. 221; 38 S.C. 210; 17 N.Y., 270; 97 S.C. 375. Asto amendment during trial: Sec. 494, Code 1932; 31 S.C. 204; 21 S.C. 221; 111 S.C. 380; 80 S.C. 214; 79 S.C. 270; 54 S.C. 110; 49 S.C. 513. Messrs. D.H. Dantzler and Lide Felder, for respondent, cite: Necessity of reply to answer: 85 S.C. 350; 67 S.C. 289; 105 S.C. 364; 89 S.E., 1040; 38 S.C. 199; 17 S.E., 732; 97 S.C. 375; 81 S.E., 654; 79 S.C. 270; 60 S.E., 689; 108 S.C. 30. As to contract with person who isnon compos mentis: 36 S.C.L., 132; 24 S.C.L., 56; 15 Wall, 9; 20 L.Ed., 73; 30 So., 524; 90 S.C. 196; 71 S.E., 371; 105 S.C. 343; 89 S.E., 1021; 30 S.C. 344; 9 S.E., 535; 175 S.E., 907; 12 C.J., 346; 33 C.J., 735; 32 C.J., 733; 14 R.C.L., 582; 14 S.C. 321. Notice: 56 S.C. 110; 115 S.C. 1; 14 S.C. 321; 122 S.C. 203; 115 S.E., 231; 32 C.J., 737; 6 R.C.L., 938. Where mistrialordered to permit amendment to pleadings: 150 S.C. 130; 147 S.E., 834; 162 S.C. 288; 160 S.E., 837; 68 S.C. 554; 48 S.E., 4; 80 S.C. 213; 61 S.E., 396; 84 S.C. 117; 65 S.E., 987; 32 S.C. 57; 10 S.E., 616; 13

  2. Plyler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

    144 S.C. 105 (S.C. 1928)   Cited 2 times

    Messrs. Dakyns B. Stover and Nettles Oxner, for appellant, cite: Failure to give notice of loss as requiredin bond, and failure to adhere to conditions specified thereinbars recovery on same: 80 S.C. 151; 233 Pac., 731; 2 Fed. 2d 214; 148 Fed., 206; 205 S.W. 128; 100 Atl., 572; 10 L.R.A. (N.S.), 323; 74 S.W. 1111; 77 So., 642; 175 S.W. 322; 97 N.W., 836; 163 Pac., 592; 94 Atl., 859; 99 Fed., 242; 103 Fed., 427; 100 N.E., 882; 2 Fed. 2d 793; 5 F.2d 305; 256 Fed., 601; 4 A.L.R., 558; 206 S.W. 892. "Waiver": 124 S.C. 169, 178. Burden of proving same on insured: 107 S.C. 193; 83 S.C. 262. Doctrine of estoppel based on strong equitable consideration: 102 S.C. 116; 130 S.C. 383, 387. "Evidenceof waiver": 70 S.C. 75; 68 S.C. 387; 55 S.C. 450; 57 S.C. 358; 104 S.C. 403; 107 S.C. 393; 102 S.C. 315; 133 S.C. 472; 124 S.C. 73. Mr. E.M. Blythe, for respondent, cites: Agent authorizedto solicit insurance may waive forfeiture of policy: 97 S.C. 375; 134 S.C. 532. Forfeitures not favored: 102 S.C. 115; 115 S.C. 53; 13 F.2d 758; 104 S.C. 167. "Waiver": 57 S.C. 358; 70 S.C. 75; 94 S.C. 299; 97 S.C. 375; 102 S.C. 115, 104 S.C. 403; 107 S.C. 393. Cases distinguished: 133 S.C. 472. March 5, 1928.

  3. Graham v. Standard Fire Ins. Co.

    119 S.C. 218 (S.C. 1922)   Cited 10 times

    Messrs. Bonham Allen, for appellant, cite: Waiver: 27 R.C.L. 908; 54 S.C. 37. Messrs. Greene Earle, for respondent, cite: What maybe taken as evidence of intention to waive forfeiture: 57 S.C. 358; 70 S.C. 295; 97 S.C. 375; 102 S.C. 115; 104 S.C. 403; 54 S.C. 509. Agent may waive provisions ofpolicy: 80 S.C. 395; 97 S.C. 375; 1 Civ. Code 1912, Sec. 2712. Violation of provision of policy, if not responsiblefor loss is not ground for forfeiture: 76 S.C. 76. No forfeiturefor violation of which agent has knowledge whereno return of premium was offered: 97 S.C. 375; 102 S.C. 315; 74 S.C. 246. April 26, 1922.

  4. Peters v. Great American Ins. Co.

    177 F.2d 773 (4th Cir. 1949)   Cited 40 times

    For example, rulings of this kind have been made as to clauses providing that the insured shall keep his records in an iron safe; that no additional insurance shall be taken out without the consent of the insurer; that insurance shall cease in the event that the insured premises are mortgaged, or that the insured goods are moved to another location without the insurer's consent. McMillan Son v. Insurance Co., 78 S.C. 433, 58 S.E. 1020, 1135; Whaley v. Guardian Fire Ins. Co., 124 S.C. 173, 117 S.E. 209; Norris v. Hartford Fire Insurance Co., 57 S.C. 358, 35 S.E. 572; Powell v. Continental Insurance Co., 97 S.C. 375, 81 S.E. 654. Similarly, provisions and statements as to manner of payment of premiums, notice of loss, physical condition of the insured, and the existence of other encumbrances on the insured property may be waived.

  5. Plummer v. Independent Life Acc. Ins. Co.

    120 S.E.2d 108 (S.C. 1961)   Cited 3 times

    Turner, Padget, Graham McDonald, of Columbia, for Appellant, cite: As to error on part of trial Judgein failing to require Plaintiff to reply to Defendant's affirmativedefense: 56 S.C. 308, 35 S.E. 207; 113 S.C. 339, 102 S.E. 639; 128 S.C. 161, 122 S.E. 670; 131 S.C. 12, 127 S.E. 270; 53 A.L.R.2d 757; 181 S.C. 238, 187 S.E. 369; 170 S.C. 509, 171 S.E. 243; 166 S.C. 203, 164 S.E. 632; 196 S.C. 195, 12 S.E.2d 708; 206 S.C. 119, 33 S.E.2d 247; 232 S.C. 414, 102 S.E.2d 435. Messrs. Eston W. Page, Justin A. Bridges and J. HewletteWasson, all of Laurens, for Respondent, cite: As topayment of amount due on one of two claims arising on separatepromises being no consideration for release of damageson breach of the other: 49 F.2d 586. As to the requiringof a reply being within the trial Judge's discretion,and will not be interfered with in absence of prejudicial error: 97 S.C. 375. Messrs. Turner, Padget, Graham McDonald, of Columbia, for Appellant, in Reply.

  6. Harvey v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.

    165 S.C. 427 (S.C. 1932)   Cited 32 times
    In Harvey v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company, 165 S.C. 427, 164 S.E., 6, Justice Stabler, now Chief Justice, speaking for the Court said: "It is elementary that forfeiture is not favored by the courts; it is also elementary that, if there is any testimony tending to show waiver of the forfeiture, an issue of fact is made for the jury, unless only one inference can be drawn from the evidence, when the question becomes one of law for the court."

    Brooks, Parker, Smith Wharton and T.M.Boulware, for appellant, cite: Cashier of company has nopower to extend time for payment of premium or waiveany lapse: 119 S.C. 402; 112 S.E., 44; 6 F.2d 300; 90 S.C. 168; 72 S.E., 1018; 108 S.C. 137; 93 S.E., 711. No evidence of waiver by company of any of its rights: 125 S.C. 228; 18 S.E., 646; 125 S.C. 303; 118 S.E., 613. Waiver is voluntary relinquishment of a known right: 151 S.C. 326; 149 S.E., 2; 131 S.C. 405; 127 S.E., 836; 27 R.C.L., 905; 130 S.C. 590. Forfeiture of policy notinvolved but only automatic election of benefits: 132 S.C. 10; 129 S.E., 84. Mr. Randolph Murdaugh, for respondent, cites: Whereagent retains premium insured has right to think there hasbeen no forfeiture: 96 S.C. 375; 80 S.E., 613; 97 S.C. 375; 81 S.E., 654; 121 S.C. 378; 113 S.E., 478. Noticeto agent is notice to company: 135 S.C. 107; 133 S.E., 215; 57 S.C. 16; 35 S.E., 391. No error in submittingquestion of waiver to jury: 75 S.C. 335; 55 S.E., 774; 101 S.C. 249; 85 S.E., 407; 134 S.C. 532; 133 S.E., 440; 139 S.C. 41; 137 S.E., 214; 88 S.C. 31; 70 S.E., 403. April 13, 1932.

  7. Julien v. Star Insurance Co.

    159 S.C. 309 (S.C. 1931)   Cited 4 times

    Messrs. W.H. Nicholson and R.F. Davis, for respondent, cite: Waiver is for the jury: 142 S.C. 461; 135 S.C. 89; 139 S.C. 41; 135 S.C. 63; 63 S.C. 197. Question offorfeiture for jury: 88 S.C. 37; 54 S.C. 599. When insuredhas right to think forfeiture will not be enforced: 57 S.C. 358; 96 U.S. 577; 96 U.S. 242; 51 S.C. 540. Who are agents of insurance company: 3 Civil Code, 1922, Sec. 4089; 57 S.C. 358; 70 S.C. 295. Agent can waiveprovisions of policy and grounds for forfeiture: 141 S.C. 64; 97 S.C. 379; 80 S.C. 407; 83 S.C. 13. Knowledgeof agent notice to company: 57 S.C. 358; 146 S.C. 41; 130 S.C. 383; 83 S.C. 13. Judgecan instruct jury as to waiver where only one inferencefrom testimony: 63 S.C. 192. Statements and conductof local agent admissible against company on issue ofwaiver: 124 S.C. 173; 97 S.C. 375; 57 S.C. 358; 130 S.C. 383; 135 S.C. 89. Failure to return unearned premiumevidence of waiver: 124 S.C. 173; 102 S.C. 115; 104 S.C. 403. Waiver and estoppel: 112 S.C. 447; 131 S.C. 405; 96 U.S. 572; 139 S.C. 41. Case controlled by 97 S.C. 375; 55 S.C. 1; 135 S.C. 62. Where Court considersthat any fair jury would have rendered a similar verdictreversal will not be granted for errors not affecting themerits: 151 S.C. 391; 138 S.C. 241; 93 S.C. 295. February 5, 1931.

  8. Simon v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co.

    151 S.C. 44 (S.C. 1929)   Cited 24 times

    t admissible in construction of bond: 50 S.E., 304; 47 So., 667; 48 So., 739; 34 S.C. 330. Presumption that incompetent testimony of some probativeforce upon material issue of fact is prejudicial: 119 S.C. 134; 117 S.C. 44. "Independent contractor": 14 R.C.L., 67; 31 S.C. 378; 13 S.C. 87; 16 S.C. 143; 19 S.C. 1. As to damages for failure to complete building: 51 S.C. 143; 58 S.C. 373; 39 S.C. 427; 90 S.C. 507; 81 S.C. 478; 67 S.E., 549; 102 S.C. 452; 27 N.C. 441; 45 Ohio St., 631; 35 Mo. App. 331; 103 N.Y.S., 641. Insurancebroker is agent for insured: 14 R.C.L., 868; 4 R.C.L., 256, 249. As to question of agency: 144 S.E., 592; 49 S.C. 345; 225 N.Y.S., 470; 142 Atl., 481; 127 S.C. 213; 113 S.C. 499; 104 S.C. 152. Prejudicial statementsby trial Judge: 139 S.C. 337; 81 S.C. 379; 99 S.C. 221; 117 S.C. 470; 119 S.C. 134; 126 S.C. 197; 128 S.C. 386; 130 S.C. 112; 145 S.E., 33. As to forfeitureby surety: 100 N.E., 882; 3 Joyce on Ins. (3rd Ed.), 2838; 55 S.C. 450; 95 Fed., 358. As to waiver: 97 S.C. 375; 102 S.C. 115, 104 S.C. 403; 130 S.C. 383. Excessiveverdict: 145 S.C. 196; 96 S.C. 267. Messrs. Dakyns B. Stover, and Dean Wyche, for respondent, cite: As to waiver: 124 S.C. 173; 46 S.C. 79; 117 S.E., 209; 14 R.C.L., 1197; 57 S.C. 358; 54 S.C. 599; 55 S.C. 6; 78 S.C. 396; Id., 444; 81 N.Y., 410. As to agency: Sec. 4089 Code; 108 S.C. 137; 35 S.E., 572. As to cost of completing building: 51 S.C. 113. Asto remarks of trial Judge: 50 S.C. 293; 87 S.C. 431; 76 S.C. 193; 69 S.C. 526; 84 S.C. 1; Id., 117; 91 S.C. 161; 101 S.C. 360; 113 S.C. 317; 128 S.C. 344. Asto forfeiture: 133 S.C. 472; 88 S.E., 372; 57 S.C. 466; 191 U.S. 420; 131 Pac., 563; 44 L.R.A. (N.S.), 848; 81 Atl., 410; 38 L.R.A. (N.S.), 699. As to estoppel: 75 S.C. 315; 52 S.C. 224; 127 S.E., 836. Where evidenceis susceptible of only one inference presiding Judge maydirect jury to so find: 71 S.C. 420; 79 S.C. 338; 42 S.C. 28; 66 S.C. 238; 67 S.C. 223; 68 S.C. 184; 52 S.C. 516.

  9. Hughes v. Palatine Insurance Company

    130 S.C. 383 (S.C. 1924)   Cited 14 times

    submitted to jury: 38 Cyc., 1624. Charge: 100 S.C. 374; 75 S.C. 529. As to ironsafe clause: 14 R.C.L., 260; 116 S.C. 437; 98 Ga. 761. "Satisfy": 7 Words Phrases, 6332. Objections to theadmission of evidence: 3 C.J., 823. Messrs. Grier, Park McDonald, for respondent, cite: Denial of liability waiver of right to require proofs of loss: 55 S.C. 589; 51 S.C. 540; 37 S.C. 56; 115 S.C. 58; 26 C.J., 502. Duplicates of written instruments: 91 N.E., 265; 94 Ark. 227; 48 S.C. 577; 29 Ont. L., 33; 9 Wall., 677; Note 11, 26 C.J., 534. Paper used to refreshmemory: 121 S.C. 237; 119 S.E., 21. Testimony as tovalue of stock of goods: 26 C.J., 535. As to bank book: 78 S.C. 433. No grounds of objection stated: 69 S.C. 434; 53 S.C. 80; 59 S.C. 243; 60 S.C. 15; 125 S.C. 220. Competency of evidence: 36 S.C. 215; 48 S.C. 223; 74 S.C. 246. Waiver: 115 S.C. 58; 29 S.C. 580; 79 S.C. 433. Forfeiture — return of unearned premium: 102 S.C. 129; 104 S.C. 403; 102 S.C. 313; 57 S.C. 358; 70 S.C. 295; 70 S.C. 82; 97 S.C. 375. Judge'scharge: 78 S.C. 443; 96 S.C. 14. December 13, 1924.

  10. Whaley v. Guardian Fire Insurance Co.

    124 S.C. 173 (S.C. 1923)   Cited 44 times

    "When an insurance company has a right to cancel a policy, and fails to cancel it and return the unearned premium, either before or after the fire, the jury may consider that as evidence of intention to waive the forfeiture." Norris v. Insurance Co., 57 S.C. 358; 35 S.E., 572. Powellv. Insurance Co., 97 S.C. 375; 81 S.E., 654. Scott v. InsuranceCo., 102 S.C. 115, 126; 86 S.E., 484. Spence v.Insurance Co., 104 S.C. 403; 89 S.E., 319. Porter v. InsuranceCo., 107 S.C. 393; 93 S.E., 141. Upon the issue of waiver the statements and conduct of the local agent were admissible in evidence against the company.