Kobilsek v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

For purposes of this decision, we may assume that the evidence, construed most favorably to the plaintiff, warranted the finding of the Trial Court that the conduct of the Forest City agent constituted a representation to the plaintiff, upon which he relied, that the policy was still in effect. The rulings that the agent’s conduct was binding upon the company, and that it is estopped to claim cancellation are not sustained by the evidence.

There is no evidence that the company had any knowledge of the agent’s reply to the plaintiff’s inquiry, or of his subsequent failure to forward the…