A broker owes no duty of care or skill to the underwriter when he is acting on the in structions of his principal ; 11 Com. Cas. 107.
A broker employed by a firm of insurance agents to solicit business on commission, hav ing a desk in their office, is hot such an agent as that notice to him by a policy holder is notice to the firm ; Arff v. Ins. Co., 2 N. Y. Supp. 188, 49 Hun, 610 ; and one is a mere broker who only represented the company in a single transaction and whose name did not appear on the policy, though he may have told the insurer that he represented the company, collected the premiums, and delivered the policy ; Gude v. Ins. Co., 53 Minn. 220, 54 N. W. 1117.
An agent has no power to delegate his authority so as to impose a liability on the company; 15 Can. L. T. 49; Dwelling House Ins. Co. v. Snyder, 59 N. J. L. 18, 34 Atl. 931.
But an insurance. company is bound by the acts of a clerk of its agent in accepting risks and issuing policies against the same in the performance of his duties, and one dealing with the clerk, as such, is not bound to in quire into his authority as to those matters ; id. An agent's solicitor who took applica tions on which policies were issued has been held the agent of the company in effecting such insurance ; McGonigle v. Ins. Co., 168 Pa. 1, 31 Atl. 868.
It has been held that a general agent (ap pointed by contract in this case) bad power to waive cash payments of premiums and extend credit ; Pythian Life Ass'n v. Pres ton, 47 Neb. 374, 66 N. W. 445 ; American Employers' Liability Ins. Co. v. Fordyce, 62 Ark. 562, 36 S. W. 1051, 54 Am. St. Rep. 305 ; to receive notice of loss ; Germania Fire Ins. Co. v. Stewart, 13 Ind. App. 627, 42 N. E. 286 ; waive proofs of loss ; Bolan v. Fire Ass'n, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 1375 ; Loeb v. Ins. Co., 99 Mo. 50, 12 S. W. 374 ; contra, Ermen trout v. Ins. Co., 63 Minn. 305, 65 N. W. 635, 30 L. R. A. 346, 56 Am. St. Rep. 481. An agent who has power to adjust losses may by parol waive formal proofs of loss; Mc Guire v. Ins. Co., 7 App. Div. 575, 40 N. Y. Supp. 300. He cannot waive the iron safe clause, when that authority is expressly withheld from him by the policy ; Roberts, Willis & Taylor Co. v. Ins. Co., 13 Tex. Civ. App. 64, 35 S. W. 955. He can insure goods subject to chattel mortgage by indorsement on, or annexation to, the policy, though it is forbidden in the printed conditions ; McGuire v. Ins. Co., 7 App. Div. 575, 40 N. Y. Supp. 300. Local agents cannot bind the company by consenting to vacancies ; McLeary v. Ins. Co. (Tex.) 32 S. W. 583 ; or that insurance on a risk, not usually taken by the company should take effect from the application (nor will it matter that a special agent, having no power to contract, was present and approv ed) ; O'Brien v. Ins. Co., 108 Cal. 227, 41 Pac. 298.
Au agent, during the continuance of his agency, may at any time, even after loss, cor rect a policy issued by him by inserting the property included in the contract but omit ted by mistake from the policy ; Taylor v. Ins. Co., 98 Ia. 521, 67 N. W. 577, 60 Am. St. Rep. 210. The agent of a company, whose authority has been revoked by- the execution by it of an assignment for the benefit of cred itors, has thereafter no authority to cancel policies and pay rebates or to set off rebates against a claim by the assignee for premiums collected ; Franzen v. Zimmer, 90 Hun 103, 35 N. Y. Supp. 612. The agent is liable for failure to cancel policy when directed to do so ; London Assur. Corp. v. Russell, 1 Pa. Super. Ct. 320; and when directed to cancel or reinsure a risk cannot reinsure in another company for which he is agent without its assent ; Empire State Ins. Co. v. Ins. Co., 138 N. Y. 446, 34 N. E. 200.
Notice to an agent of matters within his commission is such to the company ; 1 E. L. & Eq. 140 ; Capitol Ins. Co. v. Bank, 50 Kan. 449, 31 Pac. 1069 ; Bergeron V. Banking Co., 111 N. C. 45, 15 S. E. 883 ; Forward v. Ins. Co., 142 N. Y. 382, 37 N. E. 615, 25 L. R. A. 637.
The insurer has been held bound or estop ped by the knowledge or action of or notice to the agent in the following cases: By his knowledge of foreclosure proceedings ; Dick v. Ins. Co., 92 Wis. 46, 65 N. W. 742; of the
existence of a mortgage, and his attaching a clause making the loss payable to the mort gagee; Georgia Home Ins. Co. v. Stein, 72 Miss. 943, 18 South. 414; of a chattel mort gage ; Robbins v. Ins. Co., 149 N. Y. 477, 44 N. E. 159 ; of incumbrance ; German Ins. Co. v. Everett (Tex.) 36 S. W. 125 ; McDonald v. Fire Ass'n, 93 Wis. 348, 67 N. W. 719 ; Mc guire v. Ins. Co., 7 App. Div. 575, 40 N. Y. Supp. 300; where the agent is informed as to ineumbrances and fills out the application, describing the property as not incumbered ; Coles v. Ins. Co., 41 W. Va. 261, 23 S. E. 733 ; Perry v. Ins. Co., 67 N. H. 291, 33 Atl. 731, 68 Am. St. Rep. 668; where the agent, having power to issue and cancel policies, allowed a policy to remain in force after notice of an incumbrance; Phcenix Assur. Co. of London v. Coffman, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 631, 32 S. W. 810 ; where the application stated that no other company had refused to insure, and the agent had notice to the contrary ; id.; where the agent incorrectly stated the title of the insured, after being correctly informed there of ; State Ins. Co. of Des Moines v. Du Bois, 7 Colo. App. 214, 44 Pac. 756; where the agent was acquainted with premises of the insured and could have made an accurate description through his knowledge of them, the company is estopped to avoid its obliga tion by showing a mis-description of the property ; Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. Moore, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 644, 36 S. W. 146. Where the insured makes true answers to the ques tions in an application, the validity of the insurance is not affected by the falsity of the answers inserted by the agent; Robin son v. Ins. Co., 1 App. Div. 269, 37 N. Y. Supp. 146; Bernard v. Ins. Ass'n, 17 Misc. 115, 39 N. Y. Supp. 356 ; Smith v. Ins. Co., 173 Pa. 16, 33 Atl. 567. In such case he will be regarded as the agent of the company, and not of the applicant and his knowledge of the falsity of the answer will be imputed to the company ; Clubb v. Ace. Co., 97 Ga. 502, 25 S. E. 333. The company is not estopped by the agent's knowledge when that is ac quired by him by virtue of his relation as attorney for the insured in a transaction with which the company was not connected ; Union Nat. Bank v. Ins. Co., 71 Fed. 473, 18 C. C. A. 203; or when the knowledge of the agent is acquired after the issuance of the policy; Taylor v. Ins. Co., 98 Ia. 521, 67 N. W. 577, 60 Am. St. Rep. 210 ; West End Hotel & Land Co. v. Ins. Co., 74 Fed. 114. Or where the notice was to one of a firm of in surance agents, another member of which issued the policy in suit and was given sev eral months before the policy was applied for ; Queen Ins. Co. of America v. May (Tex.) 35 S. W. 829 ; and it was held that when the policy provided that no agent could stipulate for a modification of its provisions not brought to the knowledge of his principal of ficer, knowledge of the general superintend ent that material statements In the applica tion were false was not knowledge of the company; Ward v. Ins. Co., 66 Conn. 227, 33 Atl. 902, 50 Am. St. Rep. 80.
An agent's knowledge of the state of title is notice to the company; Clymer Opera Co. v. Ins. Co., 238 Pa. 137, 85 Atl. 1111; contra, Northern Assur. Co. v. Bldg. Ass'n, 183 U. S. 308, 22 Sup. Ct. 133, 46 L. Ed. 213 ; Gish v. Ins. Co., 16 Okl. 59, 87 Pac. 869, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 826 ; but the company is not estopped by the knowledge of its agents where the in sured is a party to a deception in an answer in the application ; Mudge v. Supreme Court, 149 Mich. 467, 112 N. W. 1130, 119 Am. St, Rep. 686, 14 L. R. A. (N. S.) 279. Where the agent prepares the application from for mer applications and tells the applicant that it is all right, the company is estopped from the defence of falsity of the answers ; Roe v. Ins. Ass'n, 137 Ia. 696, 115 N. W. 500.
Mere notice to an agent by insured that he would not pay the premium does not ter minate the policy ; Taylor v. Assur. Soc., 134 Fed. 932.
See, generally, an extended discussion and collection of cases on the authority of insur ance agents, 34 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 654 ; WAR RANTY.