Fay v. Swicker
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtStewart, J.
The theory upon which the courts below found for plaintiffs is that Zuercher, under Section 9586, General Code, was solely the agent of defendant,, and since Zuercher had full knowledge of the falsity of the statements in the application which Swicker signed and waigjjanted to be true, the knowledge of Zuercher became the knowledge of defendant, and as it issued its policy of insurance with that knowledge it cannot take advantage of any agreement or stipulation with reference to the warranty of the truth of the false answers in the application by Swicker.
Section 9586, General Code, reads as…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Luntz v. SternOhio Supreme Court · 1939
- Stacey v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Ohio Supreme Court · 1926
- John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. v. LuzioOhio Supreme Court · 1931
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co v. GlassOhio Supreme Court · 1927
3Cited by13 opinions
- First Alabama Bank Of Montgomery, N.A. v. First State Insurance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1990
- Costanzo v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 2005
- Grippin v. General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1953
- Finkle v. Western & Southern Life InsuranceOhio Court of Appeals · 1960
- Coletta v. Ohio Casualty Ins. Co.Ohio Court of Appeals · 1953
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.