American Life Ins. Co. v. Renfroe

• Decision Date: 21 May 1936
• Docket Number: 6 Div. 956
• Citation: American Life Ins. Co. v. Renfroe, 168 So. 871, 232 Ala. 619 (Ala. 1936)
• Parties: AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. v. RENFROE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

168 So. 871

232 Ala. 619

AMERICAN LIFE INS. CO. v. RENFROE.

6 Div. 956

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 21, 1936

Rehearing Denied June 25, 1936

Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; Ernest Lacy, Judge.

Action on a policy of life insurance by Kate Maude Powers Renfroe against the American Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Hugh A Locke and Frank M. James, both of Birmingham, for appellant.

Pennington & Tweedy, of Jasper, for appellee.

THOMAS Justice.

The errors assigned challenge the action of the trial court in overruling demurrers to count 1, and refusing charges requested by the defendant.

The action, in Code form, was founded upon a policy of insurance. The defense was that of forfeiture for nonpayment of premiums.

The grace period and reinstatement clauses of the policy are as follows:

"This policy shall be in full force so long as the premiums specified in the consideration clause on the first page hereof are duly paid. A grace of thirty-one days without interest, will be allowed in payment of premium after payment of the first premium on this policy. If this policy becomes a claim by death during the grace period, the premium then due shall be deducted if any settlement of this policy. ***

"Should this policy lapse unless surrendered to the Company, it may be reinstated at any time within five years, upon presentation of evidence of insurability satisfactory to the Company, and upon payment of all premiums in arrears with interest thereon at six per cent (6%) per annum payable annually in advance, and reinstatement or payment of all indebtedness and interest then outstanding at the time of lapse. On such reinstatement, the Company shall have the right to impose such limitations on its risk as it may see fit."

The evidence has been examined, and there was no error in refusing the general affirmative instruction requested by the defendant under the reasonable adverse tendencies contained therein as to the authority or approval by defendant of the acts of the general agent in accepting from the insured the premium after the expiration of the grace period. McMillan v. Aiken et al., 205 Ala. 35, 40, 88 So. 135.

The authority of a general agent to contract or to abrogate, or to modify contracts or conditions intended exclusively for the company's benefit, and to waive conditions reserved for the benefit of the company, of which at its volition it could take advantage or waive, and delegate to agents the implied power to waive, were questions recently considered by this court. Butler v. Standard Life Ins. Co., 167 So. 307; Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Green, 226 Ala. 512, 147 So. 442; National Life Ins. Co. of United States of America v. Reedy, 217 Ala. 114, 115 So. 8; Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Sneed, 217 Ala. 669, 117 So. 307; Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Hudgens, 229 Ala. 552, 158 So. 757; New York Life Ins. Co. v. McJunkin, 227 Ala. 228, 149 So. 663; Southern Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Avery, 230 Ala. 685, 163 So. 326; Johnson v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 223 Ala. 668, 671, 138 So. 257, 83 A.L.R. 822; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Brantley, 231 Ala. 554, 165 So. 834.

The evidence of the witnesses Jones and Montgomery showed acceptance by the general agent of overdue premiums and remittances thereof to the company without certificate of insurability. Mrs. Montgomery testified in this connection as follows:

"Mr. Jones was our agent out here in this territory, Kermit L. Jones. We furnished him stationery showing he was general agent, and we sent his cards like that, and the company had them printed and sent to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones collected premiums and sent in to us, both first premiums and premiums later on, and for reinstatement. He could collect the premiums, we don't give him any authority, but if he sent in the money we would take it. He didn't have any receipt and couldn't issue receipts; all that came from the office. He does collect money for overdue premiums and send them in to us and we sent out the receipt, and had been doing that ever since he was named agent, and he was the only general agent the defendant had out here."

In Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hayes, 202 Ala. 450, 80 So. 834, it is declared: "Where agent, having authority to accept defaulting premium, accepts premium with knowledge that payment was being made after default, such knowledge was imputable to the company, and forfeiture was waived." New York Life Ins. Co. v. McJunkin, 227 Ala. 228, 149 So. 663.

The evidence further showed that the home office received this assured's (intestate's) overdue premium,...