New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hurt
Decision Date | 30 September 1929 |
Docket Number | No. 8028,8029.,8028 |
Citation | 35 F.2d 92 |
Parties | NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. HURT et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
William C. Michaels, of Kansas City, Mo. (Louis H. Cooke, of New York City, Henry I. Eager and C. A. Randolph, both of Kansas City, Mo., Richard E. Bird, of Wichita, Kan., and Meservey, Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk & Eager, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant and plaintiff in error.
Arnold C. Todd, of Wichita, Kan. (Hal M. Black, of Wichita, Kan., on the brief), for appellees and defendants in error.
Before STONE and VAN VALKENBURGH, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, District Judge.
April 28, 1924, the New York Life Insurance Company, appellant and plaintiff in error, issued a policy upon the life of Clayton L. Andrews payable "to the Executors, Administrators or assigns of the insured or to the duly designated beneficiary" (no other beneficiary was designated). May 6, 1924, Andrews assigned, in writing, to Robert W. Hurt and Elmer R. Hurt, appellees and defendants in error, all benefits thereunder, and duplicate thereof was promptly filed with appellant and plaintiff in error in accordance with its rules and regulations. June 28 or 29, 1924, Andrews died. Proofs of death were executed on July 1 and 2, 1924.
April 1, 1926, the above assignees filed an action at law on the policy in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The same day, summons was issued to the superintendent of insurance of Kansas and received by him on April 5, and the same day forwarded by mail to the home office of the company in New York.
April 7, 1926, the company filed its bill in equity, in the same court, praying cancellation of the policy for fraud. This action was against the assignees and against the widow, Minerva M. Andrews (as "the first person to be entitled to be named as administrator of the estate of the said Clayton L. Andrews, deceased"). The fraud alleged was that the application and the policy provided that the insurance should not take effect until delivery of the policy and payment of the first premium, and then only if the insured had not consulted with or been treated by any physician between the date of his medical examination and the delivery of the policy and payment of the first premium; that the medical examination was on April 12, 1924, and the delivery of the policy and premium payment were on May 7, 1924; that between such dates insured was suffering from a dangerous ailment (bladder papilloma), which caused or contributed to his death, and had, between such dates, consulted with and been treated by physicians; that the above was known to insured at the time the policy was delivered and the premium paid, but was not discovered by complainant until after the death of insured.
April 27, 1926, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the bill in equity because of insufficiency and because: "That on the first day of April, 1926, the said Robert Hurt and Elmer Hurt filed an action in this court, being Law No. 914, wherein the said New York Life Insurance Company is defendant and wherein the plaintiffs therein are seeking to recover from the said New York Life Insurance Company the sum of $5000.00 upon the insurance policy set forth and described in the plaintiff's bill in equity; that the plaintiff has by reason thereof, an adequate remedy at law."
May 12, 1926, the company answered the suit on the policy. Following a general denial, this answer copied the bill in equity, with such changes as made it suitable as an answer, praying rescission of the policy and that defendant be held free from all liability thereon "as against the plaintiffs in this action, and as against Minerva M. Andrews and any and all persons claiming * * * under them or any of them. * * *"
May 14, 1926, the two causes were consolidated.
July 28, 1926, "motion and decree pro confesso" filed, for failure to answer the bill or to reply to the answer.
September 8, 1926, order pro confesso set aside and five days given to answer bill and to reply to answer.
September 10, 1926, answer filed to the bill. This answer denied that the policy was not in full force, and continued as follows:
The same day, a reply was filed to the answer. This reply specifically denied that Andrews was suffering from bladder papilloma or any malady at the time of the application or of delivery of the policy; that, if he was so suffering, he had any knowledge thereof at such times; that such malady contributed in any wise to his death. It further pleaded that, if Andrews had had this malady and had misrepresented his condition in that respect, yet it had not contributed to his death, and therefore the policy was not avoided because the statutes of Kansas (Rev. St. Kan. 1923, § 40 — 330) provided as follows:
The prayer of the reply was for denial to defendant of "the relief requested in its answer and cross-bill in equity" and for recovery on the policy.
November 23, 1926, the motion to dismiss the bill in equity was denied.
March 21, 1927, the causes came on for trial and a jury was impaneled and the case stated by plaintiffs. At this point, plaintiffs asked leave to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings in the suit on the policy and "thereupon the defendant asked leave to file a motion to be permitted to interpose and present its equitable defense to said law action and in its equity suit consolidated therewith before the submission of plaintiffs' case."
The jury was discharged, and the motions were filed the same day. The defendant's motion was as follows:
May 13, 1927, the court filed a memorandum opinion on the two above motions. After discussing the authorities, and particularly Peake v. Lincoln National Life Ins. Co., 15 F.(2d) 303 (this court), the opinion concluded as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Feinberg
... ... the parties on these policies. Plaintiff's remedy at law ... was therefore complete, and the equitable action was not ... maintainable. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Daniel, 328 Mo ... 876, 42 S.W.2d 584; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hurt, ... 35 F.2d 92; Powell v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New ... York, 313 Ill. 761, 144 N.E. 825. (11) The trial court ... also erred in refusing to grant defendants' alternative ... plea to suspend the equitable action pending trial of the law ... case provided the law action be promptly ... ...
-
Atlas Life Ins Co v. Southern
...policy has become incontestable is a 'contest' sufficient to preserve the insurer's rights for all purposes, see New York Life Insurance Co. v. Hurt, 10 Cir., 35 F.2d 92, 95; Harnischfeger Sales Corporation v. National Life Insurance Co., 7 Cir., 72 F.2d 921, 922; Killian v. Metropolitan Li......
-
Winer v. New York Life Ins. Co.
... ... present contest in a court, not a notice of repudiation or of ... a contest to be waged thereafter. See, e. g., Killian v ... Metropolitan L. Ins. Co., 251 N.Y. 44, 48, 166 N.E. 798, ... 64 A.L.R. 956; New York L. Ins. Co. v. Hurt (C.C.A ... [8th]) 35 F.2d 92, 95; Harnischfeger Sales Corp. v ... National L. Ins. Co. (C.C.A. [7th]) 72 F.2d 921, 922 ... Accordingly an insurer, who might otherwise be condemned to ... loss through the mere inaction of an adversary, may assume ... the offensive by going into equity and ... ...
-
New York Life Ins. Co. v. McCurdy
...Ins. Co., supra; DePee v. National Life & Accident Company, supra; Klein v. Farmers' & Bankers Life Ins. Co., supra; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hurt, 8 Cir., 35 F.2d 92; Hurt v. New York Life Ins. Co., 10 Cir., 51 F.2d 936; Id., 10 Cir., 53 F.2d 453; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hurni Packing Co.......