Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Hartzell Bros.

In order to escape the effect of the provisions of the policy, the assured relied upon allegations and proof of estoppel, and the trial court found in its favor on that ground. Parol evidence was offered, over the objection of the defendant, tending to prove that plaintiff refused to accept the policy until it was assured that the loss of silk shirts was covered by the terms of the policy; that this assurance as to coverage and liability was made by a local agent upon the instructions of another agent who was resident manager for northern Ohio. The court found that the latter “represented to…