Parsons v. Northwestern National Ins.
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Medford v. Pacific National Fire Insurance (Or. 1950)
- Vaughn v. Great American Insurance Company (Mo. Ct. App. 1965)
- Farmers' Store of Wheaton, Inc. v. Delaware Farmers' Mutual Fire Insurance (Minn. 1953)
- Eicher-Woodland Co. v. Buffalo Ins. Co. (La. 1941)
- Summers v. Travelers Ins. Co. (8th Cir. 1940)
- Camden Fire Ins. Ass'n v. Jennings (Tex. App. 1936)
- Victory Insurance v. Schroeder (Okla. 1934)
- Union Marine & General Ins. v. Kuljis (9th Cir. 1934)
- Ellis v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co. (Tex. App. 1929)
- Fisher v. Globe & Rutgers' Fire Ins. (La. 1920)
- Gately-Haire Co. v. . Niagara Fire Ins. Co. (N.Y. 1917)
- Continental Ins. Co. of New York v. Perry (Tenn. 1917)
- Mangrum & Otter Inc. v. Law Union & Rock Insurance Co. (Cal. 1916)
- Hartford Fire Insurance v. Stephens (Ariz. 1916)
- Gilman v. Commonwealth Insurance (Me. 1914)
- Webb v. Granite State Fire Insurance (Mich. 1910)
- Bessette v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. (Conn. 1930)
- Harrington v. Bremer County Farmers Mutual Fire Insurance (Iowa 1926)
- McCormick v. the Travelers Ins. Co. (Mo. Ct. App. 1923)
- Conway Bros. v. Iowa Hardware Mutual Insurance (Iowa 1921)
- German Union Fire Insurance v. Fred G. Clarke Co. (Md. 1911)
- Taylor v. Insurance Co. of North America (Okla. 1909)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
The policy of insurance was surrendered to the company for cancellation by the insured several days before the fire and by it accepted for that purpose, but the unearned premium had not been returned. The insured had done all he could to effect the cancellation of the policy prior to the loss and so had the company, save that the unearned premium had not been actually paid to the insured. Though the assent of two is required to mate a contract, one can terminate it. To facilitate doing so is the object of provisions concerning cancellation contained in insurance policies for these are not needed where parties can mutually agree. The policy in suit contained the following paragraph : “ This policy shall be canceled at any time at the request of the insured; or by the company by giving five days’ notice of such cancellation. If this policy shall be canceled as hereinbefore provided, or become void or cease, the premium v having been actually paid, the unearned portion will be returned on the surrender of this policy or at the last renewal, this company retaining the customary
The request is all that is essential to a cancellation, but the policy must be surrendered to secure the return of the unearned premium. The design of the paragraph was to enable one party to the contract to cancel it without the consent of the other, and, to this end, precisely what was necessary to accomplish this result was prescribed. Section 1745 of the Code requires the Auditor of State to refuse authority to insurance companies to do business in the State unless the form of policy issued shall “ provide for the cancellation of the same at the request of the insured upon equitable terms, and the return to the insured of any premiums in excess of the customary short rates for insurance up to the time of cancellation.” This cannot be construed as a provision to hamper the insured in ridding himself of an undesirable contract- by placing it in the power of the insurance companies to postpone cancellation indefinitely by failure to make return of the unearned premiums. .The object had
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.