Armstrong v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 13 November 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 1208.,1208. |
Parties | ARMSTRONG v. KANSAS CITY LIFE INS. CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Johnson, Moore & Stockdale, of Fort Worth, Tex., for plaintiff.
McBride, Hamilton, Lipscomb & Wood, of Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
This is a suit by Lila Armstrong, a widow, on a life insurance policy issued by the defendant to her husband, Carl Q. Armstrong, on the 23d day of March, 1925. The amount sued for is $3,000, the face of the policy, with 6 per cent. interest from the 18th day of September, 1934, 12 per cent. as statutory damages, and a reasonable attorney's fee alleged to be $1,000. The annual premium on the policy was $57.78.
A general history of the matter is: From the time the policy was issued up to March 23, 1931, there were many defaults in the payment of the premiums, and as many reinstatements on applications, and showings of an insurable state of health, etc. The premium due March 23, 1931, was not paid, nor within the grace period, and the company, as a mere matter of indulgence, continued the policy in effect, while it negotiated with the insured with respect to payment, and some weeks thereafter accepted a note dated back to March 23, 1931, for the full amount of the premium, payable November 15, 1931.
The insured made default in the payment of the note also. The note, among other provisions, had the following: "But if this note is not paid by me when due, according to its terms, then this note shall immediately and automatically cease to be an obligation or claim against me." And further provided that the insured's rights, and the rights of his beneficiary, or any one claiming under the policy, and the rights and liabilities of the company thereunder, would be the same, if not paid, as if said note had not been given. At this juncture, the company, as it had a right to do under the policy and said provisions of the note, declared the policy canceled as of date, the 23d day of March, 1931, the due date of the premium. That was done under the second paragraph in the policy, under the heading "General Provisions and Privileges," as follows: "Upon failure to pay a premium on or before the date when due, this Policy will become null and void without any action or notice by the Company, and all rights shall be forfeited to the Company, except as hereinafter provided."
One of such exceptions, so provided for in this paragraph, was as to extended, nonparticipating term insurance, for such periods as the reserves to the credit of the policy might purchase. The policy had a cash surrender or loan value after the payment of three full premiums or more, and there was a table on the face of the policy giving the periods of any such extended insurance for any year from the third to the twentieth.
Under the heading "Table of Loan and Surrender Values" was the following:
Under the general heading "Non-Forfeiture and Loan Features" is the following:
It is not necessary to quote the other options, being immaterial, since they provide, only upon request of the insured however, one for paid-up insurance in such amount as the cash surrender value will purchase, and the other for the payment of such surrender value in cash. The record shows no request was made by the insured.
On March 23, 1931, at time default in payment of premium occurred, such cash surrender value of the policy was $175.23. There was, however, a loan against the policy of $132.43; this left only $42.80 to buy such extended insurance, which, according to the table, would carry the amount of the policy as term, nonparticipating insurance, for a period of 1 year and 213 days, or to October 22, 1932. The company during this period notified the insured several times that the amount of the policy was being carried as such extended insurance, and that same would expire on the 22d day of October, 1932.
Under the heading "Protection in Event of Total Disability" is the following:
During the running of such period of 1 year and 213 days, no premiums were paid, nor applications for reinstatement presented, nor were proofs of any such permanent and total disability...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schoen v. American Nat. Ins. Co.
... ... of disability. Hablutzel v. Home Life Ins. Co., 332 ... Mo. 920, 59 S.W.2d 639, affirmed 52 S.W.2d 480; ... Co., 98 Mo.App. 410, 72 S.W. 135; ... Randolph v. City of Springfield, 257 S.W. 449, 302 ... Mo. 33; Johnson v. Mutual Life ... Equitable L. Assur. Soc., 11 F.Supp ... 729; Armstrong v. K.C. Life Ins. Co., 12 F.Supp ... 817; All States Life v. Steward, ... Co., 171 S.E ... 824, 114 W.Va. 323; Iannarelli v. Kansas City Life Ins ... Co., 171 S.E. 748, 114 W.Va. 88; Jenkins v. New York ... ...
-
First Nat. Bank of Midland v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 74--1944
...indemnity provision terminates when coverage continues under extended insurance non-forfeiture provision), and Armstrong v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., N.D.Tex.1935, 12 F.Supp. 817 (waiver of premium provision not included under extended insurance). Cf. Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 1932......