Legal Opinion

Georgia Home Insurance v. Bennett

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 22, 1918PublishedCited by 4 opinions

Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; Geo. B. Hay me, Judge; 1. The policy ivas void. Bennett was not the «ole and unconditional owner. 116 Ga. 794; 77 Miss. 348; 86 Md. 130; 21 Fla. 399; 10 Gush. 446; 40 Me. 587; 6 Humph. 176; 27 U. S. 25; 28 Tex. Civ. App. 409. There was also a change of title or interest. 94 Ark. 594; 10 Mioh. 279; 1 Id. N. P. 118; 49 S. W. 132. See also 72 Am. Dec. 705; 52 Am. Rep. 438; 85 Am. Dec. 452; 11 Am.

Read the full summary

1Opinion of the Court

SMITH, J.,

(after stating tbe facts). (1-2) Tbe requirements of tbe policy in regard to sole and unconditional ownership and change of ownership are, of course, valid and binding and are warranties, the breach of which would cancel tbe policy. But, inasmuch as they were inserted in tbe policy for tbe benefit of tbe company, they could be waived by tbe company, and will be held to have been waived if tbe agent who issued the policy bad knowledge at tbe time tbat tbe insured’s interest, which, of course, must be an insurable one — was not sole and unconditional. Westchester Fire Ins. Co. v.…

2Cases cited4 opinions

Allemania Fire Insurance v. ZwengSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
Body v. Hartford Fire InsuranceWisconsin Supreme Court · 1885
Edwards v. Sun InsuranceMissouri Court of Appeals · 1903
Westchester Fire Insurance v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917

3Cited by4 opinions

National Union Fire Insurance v. WrightSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
Reed v. Smith Steel, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2002
National Union Fire Insurance Co. v. KentSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1924
Krpan v. Central Federal Fire InsuranceMontana Supreme Court · 1930