Ambrose v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1939
• Citation: 18 N.J.Misc. 42,10 A.2d 479
• Parties: AMBROSE v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

10 A.2d 479

18 N.J.Misc. 42

AMBROSE

v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey, Cape May County.

Dec. 11, 1939.

Action on group policy by Salome Ambrose against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

Decision in accordance with opinion.

A. J. Cafiero, of Wildwood (Jonathan W. Acton, of Wildwood, of counsel), for plaintiff.

Cassman & Gottlieb, of Atlantic City, for defendant.

JAYNE, Circuit Court Judge.

It is stipulated that the controversial issues of law and fact arising from the evidence introduced at the trial of this action are to be determined by the court without a jury.

This is an action founded upon a contract of insurance. The plaintiff as the designated beneficiary seeks to recover from the defendant the sum of $1,000 alleged to have become payable to her in consequence of the death of her husband. The policy was issued by the defendant to the W. J. McCahan Sugar Refining and Molasses Company on November 30, 1925, and it was thereafter continuously renewed. It is known as a "Group Policy" insuring the lives of the employees of the McCahan Company, essentially similar, presumably, to that scrutinized in Venditto v. Spratt's Patent (America), Limited, 113 N.J.L. 357, 174 A. 697. Individual certificates are issued pursuant to the terms and conditions of the policy to the designated employees.

A certificate bearing Serial Number 1135 was admittedly issued by the defendant to the employee, Adam J. Ambrose, on July 15, 1935. This certificate evidences the undertaking of the defendant to pay to the plaintiff $1,000 if the death of Adam J. Ambrose should occur while he is in the employ of the McCahan Company and while the group policy is in force. The group policy itself was undoubtedly in force when Adam Ambrose died on January 11, 1936.

The only factual element of the plaintiff's alleged cause of action that seems to have been drawn into dispute at the trial is whether or not Ambrose was in the employ of the McCahan Company, within the intent and meaning of the policy, at the time of his death. The determination of this question of fact controls the decision of the present case.

In the policy there are such phrases as: "termination of employment"; "ceased to be in its employ"; "left said employment"; and "while the employee is in the employ of the employer." An examination of the policy evinces that these phrases refer to the existence of the relationship of employer and employee and to the status or position of the deceased in that regard at the time of his death. The word "employment" is intended to indicate the status of the holder of the certificate in relation to his employer. The phrase "termination of employment" assuredly does not mean the mere cessation of active service. This becomes at once apparent from the discovery in the policy of the following provision: "Layoff or Leave of Absence, of two months or less, shall not be considered, * * * a termination of employment within the meaning of this Policy unless notification to the contrary shall have been given by the Employer to the Company, etc." The policy obviously did not contemplate steady and constant service by the employees. An employee might only work one or more days in a fortnight and still continue to be in the employ of the company. The phrases previously quoted must mean such a termination of the relationship of employer and employee as will make applicable and effective all parts of the insurance contract.

The decisive facts must, therefore, be gathered from the evidence. Concisely stated, the evidence reveals that on the night of January 6, 1936, Ambrose was actually at work at the refinery of the McCahan Company in Philadelphia, where he had previously been regularly employed. At two o'clock on the morning of January 7, 1936, a detective of the local police department, accompanied by a member of the New Jersey State Police, visited the refinery and asked a watchman stationed at the gate for permission to interview Adam Ambrose. These officers had no warrant or other process for the arrest of Ambrose.

It may be here observed that in the circumstances just related, it is not to be inferred that the detectives then informed anyone at the refinery that Ambrose was being apprehended for any capital or criminal offense. There is no proof that they divulged any such information at that time. The power of a foreman to discharge an employee was limited, it is said, to cases of disobedience or misconduct of an employee committed in his presence. The occurrences on the morning of January 7, 1936, do not justify the inference that Ambrose was then discharged from his employment by any authorized representative of the McCahan Company.

Additional evidence discloses that Ambrose met the detectives and accompanied them to the detective bureau in Philadelphia where he was presumably interrogated. Later that morning or on the following morning, Ambrose was transported to the county jail at Cape May Court House. At seven or seven-thirty o'clock on the morning of January 11, 1936, the county physician was summoned to the jail and found Ambrose then dead. In his opinion Ambrose had then been dead six or seven hours.

It, therefore, seems credibly established that Ambrose died during the night of January 10, 1936, or at a very early hour on January 11, 1936. In the present case, no significance is sought to be...