As Affected by Acts or Knowledge of Agent.

295.- An agent asks the applicant the description in the policy based upon for a survey, after the delivery of the policy, declaring that he intends it for his private use; it is a serious question whether this survey is not the act of the company rather than of the plaintiff. But when this paper is referred to in a subsequent policy by a different company, and made a part thereof, the agent is not an agent of the last company in any sense. Le Roy v. Market Fire Ins. Co., 45 N. Y. 80.

As Affected by Acts or Knowledge of Agent.

ence are warranties, and must be substan- for purpose of taking the application. tially true or policy will be void. Ques- Alexander v. Germania Fire Ins. Co., 66 tions of materiality, good faith, and N. Y. 464; rev'g, 2 Hun, 655. knowledge of an agent, cannot affect the result. Foot v. Ætna Ins. Co., 61 N. Y. 571.

306.- An agent of company who fills up an application without the knowledge, request, or authority of the assured, cannot be regarded as agent of the assured in so doing. Hingston v. Ætna Ins. Co., 42 Iowa, 46.

311. Assured is bound by misstatement of a broker in a written application intrusted to him. Samo v. Gore District Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 26 Up. Can. C. P. 405.

312.- When assured effects a policy through the agency of his own son who signs the assured's name to the application, and whose duty it was before doing

307.- Assured is not bound by a writ-so to see that the matters therein stated ten application made part of the policy and signed by agent, without proof that he executed it, authorized it to be made, or ratified it after it was executed with knowledge of the facts. Lycoming Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 83 Ill. 302.

were correct, the assured is bound by such application notwithstanding his inability to read and write. Chatillon v. Canadian Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 27 Up. Can. C. P. 450.

313.- When assured signed a blank 308.- Application provided that com- form of application, which was subsepany should be responsible for all sur-quently filled up by company's agent, veys made by their agent personally. without any knowledge or dictation of Agent who issued the policy requested the assured, held, that assured made no previous owner to fill in a blank applica- warranty thereby. Sprague v. Holland tion, and when it was read over to the as- Purchase Ins. Co., 69 N. Y. 128. sured he objected to the distance between 314.- Policy contained clause providthe buildings, whereupon the agent stated ing that if an agent should fill up an that he would not forward it until he had application he should be considered as satisfied himself that it was correct. The acting for the applicant and not for the agent had previously visited the premises company; "but company would be rehimself. Held, that agent having taken sponsible for all surveys made by their upon himself to forward the application agent personally." After inspection of without further examination, that he did the risk the agent, with the assistance so from his previous survey, and that the of a clerk selected by himself, filled an defendants were responsible for it as a application to which it appeared the assurvey made by their agent in person.sured objected as not being correct, upon Shannon v. Hastings Mut. Fire Ins. Co., which the agent promised that he would 26 Up. Can. C. P. 380; affi'd, 2 Tupper, 81. go again to the premises and measure and 309.- Knowledge of an agent does not alter the paper to suit such measurerelieve assured from consequences of a ments. The agent notwithstanding adbreach of warranty. Barteau v. Phoenix hered to the description and diagram Ins. Co., 67 N. Y. 595. already inserted by him in the application. Held, that the agent must be deemed the agent of the company so far as the application was concerned, and that the company was estopped from disputing its correctness. Hastings Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Shannon, 2 Duval, 394 (Can. Sup.)

310.- Policy contained usual clause providing that any person other than the assured procuring the insurance should be deemed the agent of the assured and not of the company. The application for the insurance was taken by one Brewster who was engaged in soliciting business, taking and filling out applications, re- 315. When application itself states ceiving premiums, etc., for defendant. that the agent taking it is to be deemed He was aware at time he took the appli- the agent of the assured, the latter is cation of a fact constituting a breach of bound by a false statement contained warranty. Held, that his knowledge could therein, even although inserted by the not affect validity of the warranty, even agent without putting the question to assuming that he was defendant's agent the applicant. Bleakley v. Niagara Dis

As Affected by Acts or Knowledge of Agent.

trict Ins. Co., 16 Grant Ch. 198 (Can.) established what is a reasonable time And if the application contains no such is a question of law which must be declause, company is not bound by notice termined by the court. Swan v. Waterto and knowledge of agent for such pur- town Fire Ins. Co., 10 Ins. L. J. 392; 96 pose. Billington v. Provincial Ins. Co., Pa. 37. 2 Tupper, 158 (Can.); rev'g, 24 Grant Ch. 299.

320.- Condition provided that "company would not dispute the correctness of 316. If the application be prepared any diagram or plan prepared by its by agent of the company, and he misde-agent from a personal inspection." Apscribes the premises with full knowledge plication required assured to state all of their actual condition, and there be no buildings within one hundred feet of infraud or collusion between the agent and sured building, and assured omitted to the insured, the contract of insurance state existence of a small building used may be reformed in equity and made to for storing coal oil within that distance. conform to the condition of the premises A diagram was made and filled in by as they were known to the agent. But, agent and signed by him in his own in an action at law, the rights of the par- name as well as that of assured, but no ties must be determined by the contract reference was made to this building. as made, which cannot be altered or Diagram was not made from a personal modified by extrinsic evidence of a dif- inspection at the time, but from a preferent agreement, to be established from vious inspection and knowledge thereby a knowledge of the company or its agents. acquired. Held, that even if assured unWhen the company defends on the der above conditions would be relieved ground of a breach of warranty, it is no from effect to make known the building answer that it knew that such warranty in question, when there was a personal was not in fact true. Franklin Fire Ins. inspection by the agent, there was none Co. v. Martin, 11 Vroom, 568 (N. J.) in this case, as condition required it to be one made for the purpose of this particular insurance. Quinlan v. Union Fire Ins. Co., 31 Up. Can. C. P. 618.

317.- When an agent authorized to take applications for a company intentionally or negligently writes a wrong answer, or misleads the assured in the 321.- Knowledge by the company or taking and filling up of an applica- its agent and the assured of the breach tion for insurance, it is error to exclude of a warranty at time it is made, does not parol evidence of what actually did oc- relieve the assured from the consequences cur, and what was said by the assured, at of the breach, and is no basis for reforthe time of the taking of his application.mation of the policy, unless there be a If such agent received correct informa- mutual mistake as to facts. The purpose tion, company will not be permitted to in requiring a warranty is to dispense escape from liability on account of his with inquiry and cast upon the assured error or neglect. Smith v. Farmers & the obligation that the facts shall be as Mechanics' Mut. Ins. Co., 89 Pa. 287. represented. That which is a warranty 318.- Assured is not bound by a state-in a policy cannot be shown by parol ment which he did not make and did not evidence to have been inserted by misintend to make, but which he was in- take. Where the answer in a written apduced to sign by the fraud of company's plication, and a warranty, is written by agent. In such case the assured may agent as made, there is no mutual misshow the facts by parol evidence, and take and no relief for assured, unless prevent the effect of a breach of war-agent is guilty of fraud in deceiving ranty. Eilenberger v. Protective Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 89 Pa. 464.

319. Although assured cannot be prejudiced by anything wrongfully written in his application by company's agent, he is bound by acceptance and retention of the policy a reasonable time without objection. When facts are clearly

him into making it. Commonwealth Fire Ins. Co. v. Huntzinger, 10 Ins. L. J. 618; 98 Pa. 41.

322.- Where the agent of a company inspects a building which the owner wishes to have insured, and fills up an application which is signed by the owner after same is read to him such agent is to be

As Affected by Acts or Knowledge of Agent.

323.- Where one signs an application without reading it, and then accepts a policy without reading it which is in accordance with the application, parol testimony is inadmissible on his behalf of the agent's prior representations, to con- 330. The mistake of an agent done tradict the terms of the policy. Susque- within the scope of his powers, as for exhanna Mut. Ins. Co. v. Swank, 102 Pa. 17. ample a misdescription in the application 324. Assured is not bound by an of the property insured, will not enable unauthorized act of an agent in filling up the company to avoid a policy to the inand forwarding a written application; jury of insured, who innocently became nor does the former ratify such act by ac- a party to the contract; though a printed cepting a policy containing a general condition of the policy provides that the reference to the application. Benning-person procuring the insurance should be hoff v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 13 Ins. L. J. deemed the agent of the insured, and 45; 93 N. Y. 495.

As Affected by Acts or Knowledge of Agent.

the applicant, the company cannot, in the absence of fraud, defeat an action on the policy on account of false statements; and plaintiff is not estopped by the fact that a copy of the application was attached to the policy, and he failed to notify the company that the statements were false. Donnelly v. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co., 70 Iowa, 693; 15 Ins. L. J. 698.

insurance and forward applications for cording to his own knowledge, or upon acceptance to the company, must be information obtained from others than deemed the agent of the company in all he does in preparing the application, or in any representation he may make as to the character or effect of the statements therein contained; and this rule is not changed by a stipulation inserted in the policy subsequently issued, that the acts of such agent in making out the application shall be deemed the acts of the insured. Deitz v. Providence-Washington Ins. Co., 31 W. Va. 851; 8 S. E. Rep. 616. 335.- Where the agent, seeing the property, inserts a value in the application not given by the insured, who signs the application without reading it and without knowing the valuation inserted therein, and was induced to do so by an act on the part of the company, the company is estopped from denying the correctness of such valuation. Wheaton v. North British & Mercantile Ins. Co., 76 Cal. 415; 18 Pac. Rep. 758.

336.- Where an applicant for a policy answers truthfully the questions, but the agent of the company inserts the answers incorrectly in the application, such agent's error cannot be imputed to the applicant. Bennett v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 8 Cent. Rep. 692; 106 N. Y. 243; 16 Ins. L. J. 971; 12 N. East. Rep. 609; Commercial Union Assur. Co. v. Elliott, 12 Cent. Rep. 668; 13 Atl. Rep. 970 (Pa.)

-

341.- Insured is not responsible for false answers inserted by a soliciting agent in a blank application. Id.

342. If the company had knowledge, when it issued the policy, that the statements made in the application as warranties were not true, it must be regarded as having waived said warranties; and it is bound by whatever knowledge its soliciting agent had when he took the application. Stone v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 68 Iowa, 737; Mullin v. Vermont Mut. F. Ins. Co., 2 N. Eng. Rep. 483; 54 Vt. 223.

343. Falsely recorded answers of which the applicant is ignorant will not defeat a recovery, although the application provided that the representations should be regarded as warranties. Stone v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., supra.

344.- Insured bound by statements in application placed by him in hands of a broker for purpose of obtaining insurance. Fame Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 10 Bradwell, 545 (Ill.)

345.- An insurance company is not bound by the knowledge of a soliciting agent authorized to take applications so as to relieve the insured of a subsequent

337. Misstatements in an application made by a soliciting agent who was correctly informed by the insured do not constitute a breach of warranty. Bennett v. Agricultural Ins. Co., supra. 338.- Error in a statement in an ap-breach of a promissory warranty relating plication for fire insurance, which is made a warranty by the policy, will not defeat the policy where the agent who took the application was fully informed as to the facts. Siltz v. Hawkeye Ins. Co., 71 Iowa, 710; 29 N. W. Rep. 605.

339. The insurer is estopped from showing a breach of warranty by the insured, when the agent of the insurer who effected the insurance is fully apprised of the existence of encumbrances before making the insurance. Breckenridge v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 4 West. Rep. 565; 87 Mo. 62.

340.- If an agent fills up an application signed in blank by the applicant, ac

to the occupation. Cedar Rapids Ins. Co. v. Shimp, 16 Bradwell, 248 (III.)

346.- A fire insurance company is estopped from taking advantage of the falsity of an answer in an application for insurance where, at the time of the issue of the policy, it personally or through its agent, has knowledge of the facts which the question answered is intended to elicit. Dwelling House Ins. Co. v. Brodie, 52 Ark. 11; 4 L. R. A. 458; 11 S. W. Rep. 1,016; Dunbar v. Phœnix Ins. Co., 72 Wis. 492; 40 N. W. Rep. 386; Menk v. Home Ins. Co., 76 Cal. 50; 14 Pac. Rep. 837; 18 Pac. Rep. 117; Continental Ins. Co. v. Pearce, 39 Kan. 396; 7 Am. St. Rep.