Roper v. National Fire Insurance

Hoke, J., concurring: I concur in tbe disposition made of these eases, but do not wish to be understood as acquiescing to tbe proposition tbat tbe provisions of tbe standard policy forbid or affect tbe doctrine of parol waiver on tbe part of insurance companies through tbe acts and assurances of their general agents. For the reasons stated in my dissent in Black v. Insurance Co., 148 N. C., 169, I do not think tbe standard policy as set out and continued in our statute was designed or intended, under ordinary conditions, to affect tbe doctrine of *164 waiver at all. In the case before ns, however, I am inclined to the opinion that the question of waiver is not presented, being controlled or removed by the fact of the dual interest existent in the company’s agent, and for that reason I concur in the result. I am authorized to say the Chief Justice concurs in this position.