Washington National Insurance Company v. Strickland

491 So. 2d 872 (1985)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Washington National Insurance Company v. Strickland

Alabama Supreme Court
491 So. 2d 872 (1985)

  • Written by Sheryl McGrath, JD


Bruce Palmer (defendant) was a licensed agent for Washington National Insurance Company (Washington National) (defendant). On January 15, 1981, Palmer met with Carol Strickland (plaintiff) to discuss medical insurance possibilities. Palmer told Strickland about four different insurance companies’ insurance plans. Strickland selected a plan from Washington National, and Strickland filled out Washington National’s insurance application. Strickland gave the completed application to Palmer, along with a check for $100. On a conditional receipt attached to the application, Palmer wrote that the medical insurance was effective as of January 15, 1981. Palmer then tore off the conditional receipt and gave the conditional receipt to Strickland. On that date, Strickland’s height was five feet, two inches and she weighed 180 pounds. Palmer did not immediately submit Strickland’s application to Washington National. While Palmer still had the application, Strickland cancelled a pending application that Strickland had submitted to another insurance company. A short time later, Strickland was injured in a fall. Palmer still had not given the application to Washington National. Once Washington National received Strickland’s application, Washington National declined coverage because Strickland was not physically fit for coverage. Strickland sued Washington National and Palmer, alleging fraud and misrepresentation. The case proceeded to a jury trial. At trial, Strickland testified that Palmer told her that the insurance coverage was effective as of the date Strickland met with Palmer. In contrast, Palmer testified that he told Strickland the insurance coverage would be effective as of the meeting date if everything was in order. A witness from Washington National testified that that Palmer was a broker, not an agent. Palmer and the Washington National witness both testified that Palmer had no authority to approve applications or to bind Washington National to coverage. Palmer’s insurance license and application were admitted into evidence, as was the conditional receipt that Palmer gave Strickland. The conditional receipt included a printed statement that declared that the receipt did not create insurance coverage until Washington National decided that the applicant was insurable. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Strickland, including compensatory and punitive damages. Washington National appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Houston, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 735,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 735,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership