Kesler v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co
Decision Date | 22 January 1929 |
Parties | KESLER . v. COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from City Court of Atlanta; Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Georgia Anna Kesler against the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Bryant & Middlebrooks and E. B. Everett, Jr., all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Harold Hirsch and Welborn B. Cody, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
BELL, J. Mrs. Georgia Anna Kesler brought suit against Commercial Casualty Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff's husband, insuring him against death by accident and naming the plaintiff as the beneficiary. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained by the trial court, and the plaintiff excepted.
The material facts alleged in the petition were as follows: The insured applied for the policy on August 9, 1926, paying in advance $8 to cover the policy fee and the first monthly premium, each amounting to $4. The policy was issued and delivered on August 10, 1926, and contained the following provisions:
In addition to the advance payment of $S as above referred to, the insured paid, and the company accepted on account of premiums, $4 on September 4 and $12 on October 1, 1926. The insured died from accidental cause on January 13, 1927.
It is seen from the above statement that the entire amount paid by the insured upon premiums was $20. It is the contention df the plaintiff that this amount kept the policy in force for a period of five months from date of issue, or until January 10, 1927, and that with the ten-day period of grace added the policy was good until January 20, 1927, and that, since the insured died prior to that date, the company was liable. On the other hand, it is contended by the defendant that, under the express terms of the contract, the first premium was intended to pay for insurance only until September 1, 1926, and that, after crediting the four subsequent monthly payments and allowing for the period of grace, the policy expired on January 10, 1927, three days prior to the insured's death. It is thus insisted on the part of the insurer that the policy lapsed before the happening of the event insured against, and hence that liability did not attach.
Under the contentions just stated, the sole question for determination would be whether the first premium, called a monthly premium, was intended to keep the policy in force for a full month, or merely for the space between August 10, the date of issue, and September 1 following, amounting to but twenty-one days.
The only provisions of the policy having reference to the amount of the premiums and the period of time to be covered by each respectively are in the recital of the consideration, coupled with whatever words of limitation may follow in that connection, and, in the stipulation as to grace, in which there is reference to "monthly payments." The reasonable intendment of the policy is that for monthly premiums in a certain sum the insured would be protected from month to month for as long as such premiums would maintain the policy in force. A monthly premium is such an amount as will buy insurance for a month, and, if the payment of the first premium was to cover a period of only twenty-one days, then it was not a monthly premium, and it would be a misnomer to call it such. The insistence of the defendant is in effect that the first premium, amounting to $4, although termed a monthly premium, was not intended to be such in fact. There is nothing in the policy to show that one of the later premiums, any more than the first, should pay for a month's insurance, and yet the parties evidently did not intend that even as between themselves, and for the purposes only of the particular contract, a month should not be of the usual duration, but should be reduced to a period of twenty-one days. If the "monthly" premium paid in October was good for a month's insurance, why should the monthly premium in the same amount paid in August be of a lesser value? Admittedly, for no other reason than that the policy recites that, in consideration of the payment thereof the company insured the holder (from August 10) until September 1. Is this a sufficient reason? We think not. It is noted that the policy does not state in express terms that for the initial payment the insurance was to be in force until September 1, and no longer. Such a construction would be inconsistent with the idea of a monthly payment as otherwise ex-pressed in the policy, and would make the policy self-contradictory.
Aside from the clause just mentioned, there is nothing to indicate a distinction between the value of the first and the other premiums. The period of grace clause contains a reference in general terms to "monthly premiums, " and was to become operative after two months from date of issue. Unquestionably, "two months" was intended here to mean two months, and not a month and twenty-one days; and yet it was hardly...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Farmers' Mut. Fire Ins. Co. Of Ga. v. Harris
...Slap-pey, 35 Ga. App. 737, 134 S. E. 834; Continental Life Ins. Co., v. Wells, 38 Ga. App. 99, 142 S. E. 900; Kesler v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co., 39 Ga. App. 197, 146 S. E. 506. The clause written in the application (quotedabove), which was signed by the plaintiff, may not only be construed......
-
Inter-Ocean Ins. Co. v. Banks, INTER-OCEAN
...Accident Ins. Co., 232 Wis. 102, 286 N.W. 598; Mattews v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 73 Or. 278, 144 P. 85; Kesler v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 39 Ga.App. 197, 146 S.E. 506; Fallis v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co., 210 Mo.App. 579, 243 S.W. 217; Allen v. National Accident & Health Ins. Co.......
-
Cooper v. Foresters Underwriters
...to both parties, and, we think, is fully sustained by the authorities in this state.' (Italics added.) In Kesler v. Commercial Casualty Insurance Co., 39 Ga.App. 197, 146 S.E. 506, it was contended that the policy had lapsed for nonpayment of a premium due September 1st, the court held that......
- Kesler v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.