in force: 46 S.C. 79; 24 S.E., 74; 57 S.C. 358; 35 S.E., 572; 54 S.C. 599; 32 S.E., 762; 78 S.C. 396; 58 S.E., 1099; 78 S.C. 444; 58 S.E., 1020; 134 S.C. 435; 139 S.C. 41; 137 S.E., 214; 140 Va., 766; 125 S.E., 801. Notice to agent isnotice to company and waiver may be made by companythrough agent: 135 S.C. 89; 133 S.E., 214. If meaning isdoubtful the Courts will adopt meaning most favorable toinsured: 156 S.C. 117; 152 S.E., 766; 94 S.C. 299; 77 S.E., 1013; 44 L.R.A. (N.S.), 463; 101 S.C. 325; 85 S.E., 770; 181 U.S. 52; 21 Sup. Ct., 532; 45 L.Ed., 741; 161 S.C. 113; 159 S.E., 509; 128 S.C. 363; 29 C.J., 439. Must be causal connection between violation of lawand injury to prevent insured's recovery: 152 Tenn., 578; 280 S.W. 30; 165 Fed., 176; 45 N.Y., 422; 146 S.C. 28; 143 S.E., 474; 77 S.E., 209; 143 S.E., 499. Waiver isvoluntary relinquishment of a known right: 112 S.C. 436; 100 S.E., 157; 54 S.C. 599; 32 S.E., 762; 96 U.S. 234; 158 S.C. 331; 155 S.E., 577; 88 S.C. 31; 70 S.E., 403; 124 S.C. 173; 117 S.E., 209; 124 S.C. 173; 117 S.E., 209. June 13, 1932.
Action by R.L. Cockfield against the Firemen's Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Messrs. James H. Fowles, and Henry E. Davis, for appellant, cite: Evidence of waiver: 124 S.C. 173. " Waiver: 114 S.C. 183; 70 S.C. 75; 97 S.C. 375; 102 S.C. 313; 55 S.C. 450; 68 S.C. 387; 55 S.C. 589.
As to what constitutes waiver: 165 S.C. 427, 164 S.E. 6; 201 S.C. 166, 21 S.E.2d 516; 157 S.C. 464, 154 S.E. 855. As to the Supreme Courtnot disturbing the findings of fact of the Circuit Judge: 162 S.C. 200, 160 S.E. 436; 45 S.C. 107, 22 S.E. 730; 45 S.C. 494, 23 S.E. 515; 78 S.C. 457, 59 S.E. 70; 124 S.C. 176, 117 S.E. 209. Messrs.
Messrs. N.A. Turner and Edward A. Harter, Jr., of Columbia, and Clausen, Hirsh Miller, of Chicago, Ill., forAppellant, cite: As to rule that there can be no waiver orestoppel in respect to a contract which is absolutely void abinitio: 80 So. 674, 116 La. 504; 26 C.J. 66, Sec. 65. Asto what does, and does not, constitute waiver: 67 C.J. 293; 164 S.E. 6, 165 S.C. 427; 103 S.E. 508, 114 S.C. 183; 117 S.E. 209, 124 S.C. 173; 144 S.E. 71, 146 S.C. 351; 192 S.E. 161, 184 S.C. 215. As to principal beingnot affected by knowledge that agent should have had: 1 Restatement of Law of Agency 618, Sec. 277. As toapplicant for insurance having remedy against agent whenagent fails to procure coverage he agreed to procure: 109 S.E. 632, 182 N.C. 599, 18 A.L.R. 1210, 1214. As toappellant having no liability under policy: 146 S.E. 147, 148 S.C. 355; 3 S.E.2d 251, 190 S.C. 515.
Messrs. Watkins Prince, for appellant, cite: Beneficiarybound by terms of by-laws: 172 S.C. 456; 174 S.E., 397. Forfeiture for failure to pay premium: 284 U.S. 489; 42 S.Ct., 230; 76 L.Ed., 416; 188 S.E., 784. Warranty ofgood health: 177 S.C. 70; 180 S.E., 804; 180 S.C. 153; 185 S.E., 175. Where action prematurely brought: 33 C.J., 75; 37 C.J., 497; 45 C.J., 277; 156 S.E., 172 S.E., 361; 180 S.E., 650; 1 L.Ed., 687; 46 S.C. 491; 24 S.E., 334. Mr. Leon W. Harris, for respondent, cites: Agency: 189 S.E., 809; 180 S.C. 518; 186 S.E., 538. Waiver: 157 S.C. 381; 154 S.E., 221; 176 S.C. 308; 180 S.E., 204; 165 S.C. 427; 164 S.E., 6; 170 S.C. 294; 170 S.E., 349; 124 S.C. 173; 117 S.E., 209; 54 S.C. 599; 32 S.E., 762; 112 S.C. 436; 100 S.E., 157; 159 S.C. 308; 156 S.E., 865; 157 S.C. 469; 154 S.E., 859. Premiums: 119 S.C. 402; 112 S.E., 44; 116 S.C. 360; 108 S.E., 145; 102 S.C. 386; 86 S.E., 954; 187 S.E., 175; 147 S.C. 333; 145 S.E., 196. Waiver of provision governing time to commenceaction: 14 R.C.L., 1338; 176 S.C. 250; 180 S.E., 31; 105 S.C. 364; 89 S.E., 1040; 77 S.C. 486; 58 S.E., 341; 78 S.C. 309; 58 S.E., 936. June 11, 1937.
Messrs. Joseph L. Nettles and Wendell M. Levi, for appellant, cite: Estoppel: 2 Pom. Eq. Jur., 4th Ed., Sec. 812; 70 S.C. 206; 54 S.C. 375; 27 R.C.L., 610; 261 S.W., 917; 80 Wis. 393; 78 S.C. 388; 58 S.E., 1099; 50 S.C. 290; 27 S.E., 962; 98 N.W., 287; 2 C.J., 863; 49 N.W., 246; 26 C.J., 331; 13 Iowa, 375. Messrs. Purdy Bland and L.D. Jennings, for respondent, cite: Agent may waive conditions of policy: 97 S.C. 379. Waiver for the jury: 154 S.C. 221; 124 S.C. 173. Onissue of waiver statements and conduct of agent admissibleagainst company: 124 S.C. 173; 135 S.C. 189; 80 S.C. 392. May 25, 1931.
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.
t 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. June 12, 1929.
Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Mr. L.A. Hutson, for appellant, cites: "Waiver": 124 S.C. 173. Agent here had authority to waive any conditionsof policy: 79 S.C. 526; 60 S.E., 1106; 80 S.C. 407; 88 S.C. 31; 97 S.C. 375. Forfeiture not favored bythe Courts; taken most strongly against the insurer: 102 S.C. 115; 144 U.S. 439. Sufficient evidence of waiverhere, should have gone to jury: 36 S.C. 215; 46 S.C. 546; 48 S.C. 222; 51 S.C. 181; 52 S.C. 224; 54 S.C. 599; 57 S.C. 358; 70 S.C. 295; 78 S.C. 433; 102 S.C. 115; 124 S.C. 173; 125 S.C. 457; 130 S.C. 383. Errorto direct verdict: 42 S.C. 14; 43 S.C. 26; 46 S.C. 546; 52 S.C. 224; 51 S.C. 181; 55 S.C. 589; 57 S.C. 358. Contributive insurance: 22 St. at Large, 113; 57 S.C. 347. Messrs. James H. Fowles, and Brantley Zeigler, for respondent, cite: No waiver: 81 S.C. 152; 122 S.C. 536; 39 S.C. 525.
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.