Legal Opinion
London Lancashire Ins. Co. v. McWilliams
Supreme Court of Alabama
Decided November 4, 1926No. 2 Div. 884PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtSomerville, J.
An agent who is authorized only to solicit and take applications for insurance, receive the premiums, and deliver the policy after it has been signed by the proper officers has no authority, express or implied, to waive a breach of any condition of the policy after it has been delivered. Queen Ins. Co. v. Young, 86 Ala. 424, 5 So. 116, 11 Am. St. Rep. 51; Ala. State Mut. Assur. Co. v. Long, etc., Co., 123 Ala. 667, 677, 26 So. 655; Phœnix Ins. Co. v. Copeland, 90 Ala. 386, 8 So. 48; 14 R. C. L. 1159, § 340 ; 26 Corp. Jur. 289, § 361. This is so not because of the express limitation on the…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Queen Insurance v. YoungSupreme Court of Alabama · 1888
- Syndicate Insurance v. CatchingsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1893
- Alabama State Mutual Assurance Co. v. Long Clothing & Shoe Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1898
- Georgia Home Insurance v. AllenSupreme Court of Alabama · 1900
- Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. WoodSupreme Court of Alabama · 1923
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. AaronSupreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Indemnity Co. of America v. BollasSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Indemnity Company of America v. PughSupreme Court of Alabama · 1931
- Globe Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. Eureka Sawmill Co.Supreme Court of Alabama · 1933
- Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. StaggsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1942
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.