Stone v Reliance Mutual Insurance Society Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS,LORD JUSTICE STAMP |
| Judgment Date | 14 March 1972 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1972] EWCA Civ J0314-4 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 14 March 1972 |
[1972] EWCA Civ J0314-4
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
Appeal by plaintiff from Judgment of His Honour Judge Graham Rogers at The Mayor's and City of London Court on 24th June, 1971
Before
The Master Of The Rolls (Lord Denning),
Lord Justice Megaw and
Lord Justice Stamp.
Mr. M.L. KALLIPETIS (instructed by Messrs. French & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Appellant Plaintiff.
Mr. B.E.J. SHINER (instructed by Messrs. J.R. Cort Bathurst & Co.) appeared on behalf of the Respondent Defendants,
Mr. Leonard Stone lives with his wife in a flat at 86 Hebden Court, Laburnics Road, N.1. He took out policies of assurance in respect of fire, theft and endorsement with the Reliance Mutual Insurance Society Ltd. The premiums were payable weekly. They were collected by collectors who cailed at the door and entered the amount in a premium reseipt book for each policy.
One of these policies covered the rick of fire. This was issued as a result of a call by a canvasser, Mr. Brooks, on 26th April 1966. He saw the wife, Mrs. Stone. He filled in the proposal form and she signed it. In February 1967 there was a fire at the premises. The branch manager went to see the damage. The Society paid Mr. Stons £280. 3s.6d. for the damage done.
In August 1967 the policies lapsed because the premiums had not been paid. It is not suggested that this was the fault of Mr. or Mrs. Stone. She said that the collector had not been to collect the money.
In January 1968 Mr. O'Shea, an inspector, called from the insurance society. He had with him a new agent to show him the area. He was salling on peeple who ware existing policy holders or whose policies had lapsed and to seok their revival. He was not canvassing for new business. Mr. Stone was not in. So Mrs. Stone saw Mr. O'Shea. He asked her if she would like to take out a now policy, and suggented it should be for a higher amount, £1100, instead of £500. She said in evidenes: "I agreed, and he got out come form and started filling them in. He didn't ask me any questions. When held filled them in (2 forme) he gave them to me to me sign. He showed me where to sign, I didn'there read them."
Mr. O'Shea agresd that he filled in the forms. He said inevidence: "It is company policy that I should put the questions, writing down ansvers."
As much turng on the proposal form, I must read a good deal of it. It was a printed form:-
"Propeser: Leonard Stone, Tailor's Cutter,
86 Hebdon Court, Laburnum Road, N.l
5. State Policy Numbers held Lapsed In force by you with the Society and Policy Nos. Table Policy Nos. Tabl whether lapsed or in force None None
7. Give particulars and dates of any claims you have made in None respect of any risks hereby proposed to be insured
State sum proposed to be insured (for fire or burglary) £1100
I hereby declare that the answers given in the above proposal are in every respect true and correct and that I have not concealed any important circumstances that ought to be communicated to the Society. I further declare in so far as any part of this proposal is not written by as the person who has written sane has done so by ay instructions and as by agent for that purpose. I agree that the above proposal and this declaration shall be the baser of the Contract of Insurance between the Society and myself and I an willing to accept a policy subject to the provisions and conditions contained therein, and I agree that the liability of the Society does not commence until this proposal has been accepted by the Directors and the premium paid.
Proposer's Signature Theresa Stone Witness S. 0'Shea Date 29/1/68."
There is a mark near Mrs. Stone's signature as if she was told whore to sign.
It is apparent that the answers to questions 5 and 7 were wrong, Mr. O'Shea oust have made a mistake in filling then in. The Society had information, no doubt, in their own records about the lapsed policies and about the fire claim. Mr. O'Shea cannot have known about them or remembered them. Mr. O'Shea could not have inserted "None" as the amswere.
The proposal form want up to the Head Office of the Society.
They do not seem to have kecked their records either. At any rata they issued a policy against burglary and housebreaking and it was delivered to 86 Hebeen Court, W.l. It gave the insured as Leonard Stone. The commencement date was 29th January 1968. The sum insured was £1100. The premium was 10d. a week. Thereafter the premiums were duly paid.
On 16th October 1969 thieves broke into Mr. Stone's flat at 86 Hsbden Court. He at once called the police. He obtained a claim form from the local office. Within two days, on 18th October 1969 he put in his claim to the Reliance Insurance Society, On the form was a question to which he gave answers disclosing fully the previous fire claim, thus showing good faith.
"11. Have you ewer sustained loss by fire, burglary, housebreaking YES or larceny?
Was a claim made upon any Company or underwriters? If so, give nags, date FIRE DAMAGE FEB-1966 nature of loss and amount paid PAID £280"
That answer was quite correct except that "1966" was a mistake for"1967". He added a list of the items stolen amounting to £211.
Mr. Stone sent that form in to the local office of the Baliance Society in Leyton. They received it on 23rd October 1969. An assessor went to the flat and agreed the amount at £211. The collectors wont on collecting the premiums which were duly paid.
On 9th January 1970 he signed another claim forts containing the same particulars, and sent it to the local office at Leyton. They sent it on to the head office at Tunbridge Walls, Head offices received it on 19th January 1970 and rejected the claim. They alleged that he had not disclosed the previous fire claim. They said:-
"It is also understood that you have previously held policies with this Society, and also sustained a firm lose in the region of £280 which was not disclosed on the proposal form in answer to the relevant questions in respect of your present policy.
In the circumstances we regret to inform you that we are not prepared to admit liability."
The case was tried in the Mayou's and City of London Court. The Judge reserved his Judgment and, with some regret, dismissed the claim. He thought that the ease could not be excepted from the established principle as set out in Newsholme Brothere v. Boad Transport and General Insurance Co, Ltd. (1929) 2 X.B. 356. His findings are not quite as full as one could have wished. But as I read them, this much is quite clear. Neither party was guilty of any fraud. Fraud was not alleged. It was not proved. It was not found. The only inference is that the answers in the proposal form were inserted by mistake. Whose mistake? Clearly Mr. O'Shea's mistake; because he did not ask Mrs. Stone the questions: and he inserted the answer out of his own head. without checking up from her - or from the Society's recorder whether they were true or not. No doubt it was Mrs. Stone's mistake too. She ought to have read through the questions and answers before she signed the form; but she did not do so. Her mistake was, however, excusable, because she was of little education, and assumed that the agent would know all about the previous policies and that there had been claims made under them. She said. "He didn't ask about any previous claims. He already knew about it."
On those facts, it seems to me that the agent by his conduct impliedly represented that he had filled in the fore correctly and that he needed no further information from her. Belying on this implied representation she signed the form which he put before her. Later the policy was cent and she paid the premiums.
What then is the legal position? It is quite clear that in filling in the form the agent here was meting within the scope of his authority. He said: "It is Company policy that I should putthe questions, writing down answer." This distinguishes the print present ease from Newsholme's case, where the agent had no authority to fill in the proposal for ass and it was held that he was merely the amanuensis of the proposer. The present ease is more like Bawden v. London, Edinburgh, and Glasgow Assurance Co., (1892) 2 Q.B. 534, where Bawden was an illiterate san who had lost one eye. The agent filled in the proposal form and put it before Bawden for signature. He signed it. The agent made a mistake in filling in the form because he ought to have stated in the "particulars of deviations" the fast that Bawden had only one eye; but he failed to do so. There was the usual claim that the proposal was the basis of the contract. Bawden afterwards lost the other eye. It was held that Bawden was entitled to recover on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Abu Bakar v Oriental Fire & General Insurance Company Ltd
- Poh Siew Cheng v American International Assurance Company Ltd
-
Silva v. Sizoo et al., (1997) 48 O.T.C. 347 (GD)
...Life Insurance Co., [1995] I.L.R. 1-3251; 83 O.A.C. 321, refd to. [para. 22]. Stone v. Reliance Mutual Insurance Society Ltd., [1972] 1 Lloyd's Rep. 469 (C.A.), refd to. [para. Cameron v. Coopérants Mutual Life Insurance Society (1992), 118 N.S.R.(2d) 64; 327 A.P.R. 64; 16 C.C.L.I.(2d) 228 ......
- Winter v Irish Life Assurance Plc
-
Table of cases
...[1945] 2 DLR 663, [1945] 2 WWR 248, [1945] BCJ No 49 (CA) ................ 470 Stone v Reliance Mutual Insurance Society Ltd, [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 469 (CA) ...............................................................201–10 Stoyka v General Accident Assurance Co of Canada (2000), 47 OR (3......
-
Table of cases
...Stevenson v. Reliance Petroleum Ltd., [1956] S.C.R. 936, 5 D.L.R. (2d) 673 ..240 Stone v. Reliance Mutual Insurance Society Ltd., [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 469 (C.A.) ..........................................................................................................154 Taylor v. London A......
-
Intermediaries
...the appeal, Lord Denning distinguished Newsholme Brothers on two interrelated grounds. First, the insurance agent was acting 31 [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 469 (CA) [ Stone ]. INSUR ANCE LAW 210 for the insurer — and not the prospective insureds — when completing the application. The insurer had g......
-
Intermediaries
...is the appropriate remedy in this case? Should the Court award damages to the insured? Should the Court declare the contract 17 [1972] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 469 (C.A.) [ Stone ]. 18 Ibid . at 473. Intermediaries 155 void? Contrary to the facts in Newsholme Brothers , there had been no disclosure w......