(Download) "Motor Co. v. Norwich Union F.I. Soc." by Supreme Court of Montana # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Motor Co. v. Norwich Union F.I. Soc.
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 23, 1925
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
Insurance ? Automobiles ? Confiscation ? Transportation of Intoxicating Liquors ? Validity of Policy ? Notice and Proof of Loss ? Waiver ? Directed Verdict ? Motion by Both Parties ? Effect. Intoxicating Liquors ? Illegal Transportation ? Insurance of Automobiles Against Confiscation ? Validity of Policy ? Public Policy. 1. Since the provisions of section 3450, United States Revised Statutes, in so far as that section provided for the confiscation and forfeiture of automobiles used in the illegal transportation of intoxicating liquors, were repealed by the National Prohibition Act in 1919, and were not re-enacted until November 23, 1921, by the supplementary Prohibition Act, a car confiscated in January, 1921, must have been confiscated under section 26, Title 2, of the Prohibition Act, and therefore, it being competent to insure the vendor of an automobile against the confiscation thereof for a violation of the latter Act by a person other than the vendor, a policy of insurance against confiscation, issued in 1920 prior to the re-enactment of section 3450 above was not void as against public policy. Automobiles ? Insurance Against Confiscation ? Notice and Proof of Loss ? Waiver. 2. Where defendant insurance company two days after the seizure of an automobile which it had insured against confiscation had been notified thereof, for eighteen months thereafter investigated - Page 584 the circumstances attending the seizure, and in the meantime admitted liability, it waived the right to question the sufficiency of the insureds notice of confiscation and proof of loss. Insurance ? Policy Conditions ? Waiver ? Estoppel. 3. If at the time of the issuance of a policy the insurer had knowledge of existing facts which, if insisted on, would invalidate the contract from its inception, such knowledge constitutes a waiver of the conditions in the policy inconsistent with the known facts, and the insurer is estopped from asserting the breach of such conditions in an action on the policy. Same ? Confiscation of Automobile ? False Representation as to Car Being New ? Estoppel. 4. Under the above rule (par. 3), held that where the agent of defendant insurance company knew that an automobile about to be insured against confiscation was second-hand but chose to insure it as a new car, the company, to which the knowledge acquired by the agent was imputable, was estopped to urge the alleged false representation by the insured in that respect as a defense to its liability on the policy. Trial ? Motion for Directed Verdict by Both Parties ? Effect. 5. A request by both parties for a directed verdict amounts to a submission of the whole case to the court, and its decision upon the facts has the same effect as the verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed if supported by any substantial evidence.