Norby v. Bankers Life Company of Des Moines, Iowa
Minnesota Supreme Court
231 N.W.2d 665 (1975)
- Written by Haley Gintis, JD
Facts
Hoffman Brothers, Inc. (Hoffman) (defendant) provided its employees and their dependents with accident and sickness insurance through The Bankers Life Company of Des Moines, Iowa (Bankers Life). In September 1970, Hoffman employed Fred G. Norby (plaintiff). Norby applied to receive the insurance coverage and submitted the insurance application to Hoffman. Hoffman, however, failed to submit the application to Bankers Life. On December 31, 1970, Norby completed a second application, which Hoffman submitted. Upon receiving the application, Bankers Life informed Hoffman and Norby that coverage would begin on January 20, 1971. The day before Norby’s coverage was set to start, Norby’s child was injured. The injury resulted in $3,460 worth of medical bills. Norby submitted the claim to Bankers Life. However, Bankers Life denied the claim on the ground that because it had never received Norby’s first application, Norby was not covered by the policy until the second application went into effect on January 20. Norby filed a suit against Bankers Life. Bankers Life then filed a third-party suit against Hoffman for indemnity or contribution. The trial court returned a verdict for Norby on the ground that Bankers Life and Hoffman were in a principal-agent relationship and that Hoffman, as an agent, had accepted Norby’s first application on Bankers Life’s behalf. Therefore, Bankers Life was bound by Hoffman’s actions, and Norby’s coverage began in September 1970, when he first submitted his application.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peterson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.