Notice To Agent As Notice To PrincipalThe is chargeable with all the knowledge the possesses in the transaction of the business he has in.18 Or as another case puts it, a principal is chargeable with notice of all such facts as come to his agent's knowledge, whilst acting within the scope of his agency.1913 Nat. Allen, 116 Mass.
400 (1874), (citing Huntington v. Knox, 7 Cush. 371, 374; Bk.
Revocation may be express or implied in the conduct of the principal or agent. By revocation by the agent: An agent has also a right to revoke the agency by giving a reasonable notice in the same manner and with same liabilities regarding compensation, as discussed above in the case of revocation by the principal. The agent's apparent authority terminates only when the third party has notice that the principal is dead, has notice that the principal's loss of capacity is permanent, or that the principal has been judicially determined to lack capacity. A and b, but not c.
Rice, 107 Mass. 43).14Davis v.
Lynch, 31 Misc. 1900).15City Trust. American Brewg.
1902); aff'd, 174 N. 486 (1903); Mississippi Valley Const. Abeles, 112 S. 1908).16Wasserman v. Bacon, 80 App.
1903).17See Sec. 46 supra.When the members of a partnership are appointed agents, they are joint agents. Notice to one of two or more joint agents is notice to all.20'In an action between vendor and vendee, knowledge possessed by either the principal or the agent is, respectively, imputable to each other.' 21 The rule rests upon the duty of the agent to disclose to the principal all the-material facts coming to his knowledge with reference to the subject of his agency and upon the presumption that he has discharged that duty. 'An agent owes a duty to his principal to disclose to him any information which he may have which may be relevant to that agency. The law conclusively presumes that the agent makes such disclosure, unless the agent has some private purpose to accomplish, the accomplishment of which would be imperiled thereby.'
When Notice To Agent Is Not Notice To PrincipalThe presumption as to disclosure does not always arise, for there are several exceptions.23 When the agent has no right to disclose a fact to his principal, or he is engaged in a scheme to defraud his principal, the presumption does not prevail.2418 Adams v. 539 (1875).19 Kauffman v. Robey, 60 Tex.
310 (1883), (citing Jones v. 21 Iowa 217; Fulton Bk. Canal Co., 4 Paige 127; Ewell's Evans on Agency, 164; Le Neve v.
Le Neve, 2 Lead. 167, 168).20 Whlttenbrock v.
Parker, 102 Cal. 100 (1894), (citing Wade on Law of Notice, Sec.
681; Fulton Bk. Canal Co., 4 Paige (N. Y.) 127; North River Bk. Ayman, 3 Hill (N. Y.) 262; Bank of U. Davis, 2 Hill 451; Natl.
490).21 Mayer v. 560 (1889).22 Crooks v. People's Natl. See also Sec. 248 supra.23 Henry v. Allen, 151 N. 1 (1896).24 Id.; Kauffman v.
311 (1883), (citing Winchester v. Susquehanna R. 231; La Farge Ins. Bell, 22 Barb. Y.) 54; McCormlck v. 114).In Pine Mountain Iron Co.
Bailey, 94 Fed. 258 (1899), the court said: ' The rule that notice to the agent is notice to the principal has an exception as well established as the rule itself.
It is that when the agent acts for himself, in his own interest, and adversely to his principal. neither notice to nor the knowledge of the agent can be lawfully imputed to the principal.25 The reason of the general rule is that it is the duty of the agent to communicate to his principal the facts relative to any transaction in which he acts on his behalf, and that the law presumes that he has discharged his duty.
But when the nominal agent commences to act in his own interest, and adversely to his principal, the presumption no longer obtains that he will communicate to him facts which might prevent the consummation of the negotiation which he is conducting on his own behalf, and the counter presumption that he will conceal them arises. As the no longer exists, the rule ceases to apply, and the exception prevails.' In Benedict v. Arnoux, 154 N. 728 (1897), it was claimed that the knowledge of the agent was imputable to the principal.
Is Notice to the Agent Notice to the Principal? Posted By Robert Sparks Jan 18, 2013In a recent decision from the Fifth District Court of Appeal the issue of whether notice to an agent is notice to the principal was raised again.In the case of Gay and Gay Plumbing v. Association of Casualty Ins. The defendant (insurance company) denied UM coverage to the insured claiming that Mr.
Gay (insured) had settled his bodily injury claim contrary to policy language and that Mr. Gay failed to given written notice to the insurance company. Based on this defense, the defendant moved for summary judgment which the trial court ultimately granted and effectively dismissed Mr. Gay’s case.The case facts established that Mr. Gay was injured in a while driving a vehicle owned by his company. After the accident Mr.
Gay contacted a representative from the company (Burkey Risk Services, Inc.) where he purchased his insurance coverage. Gay also asked Burkey to report the UM Claim to the insurance company, Association Insurance.On appeal of the dismissal of his case, the Fifth District Court of Appeal of Florida found that the trial court had erred by finding that notice to Burkey Risk was not notice to the Association. The facts were undisputed that Burkey was both an agent to the insured and the insurer. See Gay and Gay Plumbing, Inc. Association Casualty Ins. So.3d, 37 FLW D2259 (Fla.
5th DCA 9-21-2012).Florida law provides that notice to the agent is notice to the principal including the context of insurance. Additionally, Florida law also establishes that one can waive the written notice requirement when the carrier had actual notice of the claim.
In the case at hand, the Fifth DCA correctly upheld the law and as a result Mr. Gay will be allowed to resume his lawsuit and seek insurance benefits from his carrier.If you have a question regarding Florida insurance coverage or an insurance dispute in your case, we welcome you to call Givens Givens Sparks for a free case evaluation. A division of our firm is dedicated to protecting policyholder rights and we strive to hold insurance companies responsible for the coverage they provide.