The twenty-two years that have passed since the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its opinion in the case of Northern Assurance Co. v. Grand View Building Assoc. have done little to clear away the wordy fog which that famous case did so much to raise about the doctrines of waiver and estoppel in insurance law. Stripped of trappings, the main point determined by that case was that an insurance company might deliver to an honest applicant for insurance a piece of paper having the appearance of an insurance policy, take from him the price of a sound contract, and leave him under the belief that he had actually secured the protection for which he had applied and paid, and still be allowed in an action at law to show that, by reason of the breach of a condition precedent, known all the time to its officiatinga gent, it had assumedn o obligationt o pay. Incidentally, in assessing the fireside equities, one recalls that in practice the insurer would not be required to return the premium unless the occurrence of a loss should afford unhappy occasion to the duped applicant to learn that he had received no consideration for his premium payment. The essential inequity of this result was recognized when in a later appeal in a case involving the same transaction and the same parties, the Supreme Court held that the insured was entitled to his money if only he went about getting it in the right way, viz.,. by a bill in equity to reform the contract.
展开▼
机译:自美国最高法院在北方保证公司诉Grand View Building Assoc一案中作出判决以来已经过去了22年。消除模糊的烟雾几乎没有做些什么,那起著名案件对保险法中的放弃和禁止反言理论起了很大作用。剥夺了陷阱,此案确定的主要观点是,保险公司可以向诚实的保险申请人交付一张看起来像是一张保单的纸,从他那里拿走一份可靠合同的价格,然后让他接受认为他实际上已经获得了他所申请和支付的保护,并且仍然可以在法律诉讼中被允许表明,由于违反先决条件,因此代理人一直都知道没有承担义务。附带一提的是,在评估炉边股票时,有人回忆说,实际上,保险人无需偿还保险费,除非发生损失使被欺骗的申请人不高兴有机会得知自己未曾考虑支付保险费。最高法院在后来的涉及同一笔交易和同一当事方的上诉中承认这一结果的实质性不平等,最高法院认为,只要被保险人以正确的方式获得赔偿,他就有权获得其赔偿。 。,。通过权益票据改革合同。
展开▼