Claim of Lane v. Lane

The controversy is between the employer and carrier as to coverage. The former claims he was insured at the time of the accident, by an eral lander. There can be no question of the validity of oral insurance if such contract was in fact made.

The sole question here is whether the carrier by any authorized agent ever agreed to an oral binder. The employer authorized its broker Fichter to obtain insurance. Fichter took the matter up with Sweeney, another broker. Sweeney made application to Brockhurst, who describes himself as a broker and ordinary agent for the carrier. He testified that he had…