Wilson v. Brotherhood of American Yeomen

• Decision Date: 03 March 1923
• Docket Number: No. 23522.,23522.
• Citation: 249 S.W. 650
• Parties: WILSON v. BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICAN YEOMEN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

249 S.W. 650

WILSON v. BROTHERHOOD OF AMERICAN YEOMEN.

No. 23522.

Supreme Court of Missouri, in Banc.

March 3, 1923.

Rehearing Denied April 2, 1923.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Benjamin J. Klene, Judge.

Action by Edgar J. Wilson against the Brotherhood of American Yeomen. Judgment for plaintiff was reversed by the Court of Appeals (237 S. W. 212), which certified the case to the Supreme Court. Judgment of trial court reversed.

John D. Denison, of Des Moines, Iowa, and Lehmann & Lehmann, of St. Louis, for appellant.

James M. Rollins and Joseph Reilly, bon of St. Louis, for respondent.

RAGLAND, J.

This is an action on a benefit certificate issued by a fraternal beneficiary association wherein plaintiff seeks to recover indemnity for permanent total disability as therein provided. The defense is based on the falsity of the answers made by plaintiff to certain questions propounded to him in his application for membership, which by the terms of the application itself he warranted to be strictly true. As bearing on such defense, it appears that defendant has not deposited in court for the benefit of plaintiff, nor tendered, or offered to return, the payments received from him.

Defendant (appellant here) asserts thee, as it is a fraternal beneficiary association, and the action is on one of its benefit certificates, sections 6142 and 6145, R. S. 1919, statutes relating to life insurance generally, are without application; and hence the false answers avoid the contract of insurance, regardless of their materiality; and such defense can be made without an offer to return the premiums. Respondent, on the other hand, contends: (1) That, notwithstanding appellant was organized, chartered, and licensed as a fraternal beneficiary association, the contract in suit was not such a one as a fraternal beneficiary association is entitled to issue, and for that reason appellant, when sued on it, cannot invoke exemption from the general insurance laws of the state; and (2) that, regardless of any statute on the subject, an insurance company cannot, under the general law, defend an action on one of its policies on the ground that false representations were made in its procurement, unless it returns, or offers to return, the premiums received.

The case comes here on the certification of the St. Louis Court of Appeals. The opinion accompanying it is the second one handed down by that court. It was concurred in by all of the judges, but the cause was...