surance at the time that upon receipt of his application and note the policy would be reinstated by the company. Five weeks later the actuary returned the note to the agent who sent it, stating that it could not be received in payment and suggesting that further attempts be made to secure payment of the premium partly in cash. The policy holder was not notified and the note was not returned to him. About six weeks later, the policy holder died. It is held:
An agent of an insurance company with authority to solicit applications for insurance is the agent of the company within § 6632, of the Comp. Laws of 1913 and not of the insured while soliciting an application for reinstatement.
Insurance—insurance policy clause against waiver by agent may be waived.
2. A clause in an insurance policy to the effect that it cannot be altered by an agent or its provisions waived, except by written agreement of the company, is for the benefit of the company and may be waived by it.
Insurance—where insurer’s agent led insured to believe that by conforming to stated requirements his policy would be reinstated and he complied, the insurer, by neglecting to notify of rejection, waives nonliability clauses.
3. Where a policy holder is led honestly to believe that by conforming to certain requirements stated by an agent, his policy will be reinstated, and where he complies with the requirements and thereafter the company neglects to notify him that his reinstatement application is rejected, it waives the provisions of the policy under which its non-liability *" might otherwise be asserted.
Contracts—where offeree is under duty to notify offerer that his proposal is rejected, failure to communicate rejection may result in legal assent.
4. Where the relations between parties are such that an offeree is under duty to notify the offerer that his proposal is rejected, the failure to communicate the rejection may result in legal assent to the terms of the offer.
Opinion filed Dec. 1st, 1921. Rehearing denied Dec, 30, 1921.
O. W. McConnell, Keohane & Jones and G. J. Oppegard, for appellant.
The insured is as a matter of law presumed to know the terms and conditions set forth in his contract of insurance, and that the same are binding upon him. Clevenger v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. 2 Dak. 114, 3 N. W. 313;14 R. C. L. p. 986, § 159.
“A stipulation in the policy that no agent has power to modify the
