
    Daniel Wisotzkey, Respondent, v. The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Appellant.
    Fourth Department,
    May 2, 1906.
    Fire insurance — when agents placing insurance through agents of other insurers are not agents of such insurers.
    A custom of fire insurance agents when unable or unwilling to accept the entire risk for their own companies to place part of the insurance through the agents of other companies and, having secured such insurance, to deal directly with the insured, who has no communication with the authorized agents, does not make them agents of the companies with which'they place such insurance when the policy issued reads “ In any matter relating to this insurance no -person, -unless duly authorized in writing, shall be deemed the agent of this company.”
    Such agents are merely acting as insurance brokers, and their knowledge that the insured was not the owner otthe property is not chargeable to the companies with which they have placed the policy.
    McLennan, P. J., dissented, with opinion.
    . Appeal by tlié defendant, The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in -favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Allegany on the 18th day of October; 1905, upon the report of a referee,
    
      Horace McGuire, for the appellant.
    
      F. A. Robbins, for the respondent.
   Spring, J.:

The policy of' insurance in this case was issued concurrently with the one involved ¡in the action of the same plaintiff against the Niagara Fire. Insurance- Company, a decision in which case is handed down simultaneously with the present decision. (112 App. Div. 599.) ,The records in the two'cases are largely identical, with, however, one important difference.

Murray & Jones were the'insurance agents at Hornellsville to to whom Michael, the owner of the property, applied for insurance. They were unable or unwilling to place all the $15,00.0 of insurance desired in companies represented by them.- They accordingly applied to Mr. Dunning, the general agent of the defendant at Hornellsville, and he thereupon issued the policy in suit, countersigning it as agent. Murray & Jones placed on the outside of the policy Murray & Jones, General Insurance, 132 Main Street, Hornellsville, N. Y.,” the same as Upon all the other policies, and delivered them all to Michael, who paid them the premium on the policy and they settled with Dunning, the agen.t of the defendant.

Michael never had any communication with Dunning and never employed him to insure his property. His agreement Was with Murray & Jones. The' parol proof shows that they knew that the plaintiff was not the absolute owner of the insured property, but the policy was intended primarily to protect him for loans, advances and indorsements for" the benefit of Michael, the owner; and'to enable the latter to carry on-the lumber business.

The referee, upon evidence which justifies the conclusion, has made the following finding of fact: “ That in the year 1903, and for some time prior thereto, there had existed among the insurance offices and agencies in said city of Hornellsville a custom of divide ing insurance in the manner following: When an agent received an application for a line of insurance larger, than he desired or' was able to write he placed a part of it with another agent, obtained the policy or policies so issued, placed them with the policies issued by himself or the companies he represented directly on the same property, delivered all the policies to the insured,-collected the whole premium, and settled with the agent issuing the policy or policies so applied for. That under this 'custom the insured had no conn munication with agent writing and issuing the policy so applied for by the other agent, and tlio insured did not know him in the transaction. That the defendant herein, the Hartford Fire Insurance Company,, had notice and knowledge"of said custom.”

The policy contains this .clause: “In any «matter relating to this insurance no person, unless duly authorized, in writing, shall be deémed the ágént of this company.”

We think Murray & Jones were not the agents of the defendant, but in effecting this insurance were .insurance brokers, and their knowledge of the real interest of the plaintiff in the insured property cannot, be deemed information binding the defendant. (Northrup v. Piza, 43 App. Div. 284; affd., 167 N. Y. 578 ; McGrath v. Home Insurance Co., 88 App. Div. 153.)

The prevalence of the custom for the mutual accommodation' of the various agencies, in Hornellsville does not alter the principle applied in the cases cited. The custom or practice was for the convenience of the agents, and did not constitute each one of them á general agent of the defendant.

The judgment should be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.

All concurred, except McLennax, P. J., who dissented in opinion.

McLennan, P. J. (dissenting):

I dissent upon the ground that the, finding of the referee that Murray & Jones were the agents of the defendant was amply supported by the evidence; upon the further ground that it would be against.public policy to hold that a general insurance agent who is-made acquainted with all the facts in an application 'for insurance may go to another, insürance'agent when their usual course of business permits such dealing, and effect the desired insurance without disclosing the information received by him from the applicant for insurance, and thus prevent a-valid policy of- insurance being issued.

Jt is well known that a person or corporation having property to be insured usually intrusts suchinsúrance-to an agent or broker who represents a number of insurance companies. If the amount of insurance is greater than the companies represented by such agent can carry, the desired amount is effected" through other agencies representing other insurance companies. This system of placing insurance is almost universal, but it has been expressly found by the referee upon competent evidence that it was the practice and system adopted by the defendant'insurance'company in the city of ■Hornellsville. We think under the circumstances that the information received by the agent of the Niagara Fire Insurance Company was the information received by the defendant, and that it was bound thereby.

It, therefore, follows that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Judgment'reversed and new trial ordered, with costs to appellant -to abide event, upon questions of law only, the facts having been examined and no error found therein.  