Beecey v. Travelers' Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 28 May 1929
• Citation: 166 N.E. 571,267 Mass. 135
• Parties: BEECEY v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

267 Mass. 135

166 N.E. 571

BEECEY

v.TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 28, 1929.

Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; George A. Flynn, Judge.

Action by Anastasia Beecey against the Travelers' Insurance Company. Verdict for defendant, and case reported. Judgment for defendant on verdict.J. J. Cummings, of Boston, for plaintiff.

A. E. Bent and W. I. Badger, both of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action of contract by the beneficiary named in a certificate of insurance issued to one Stedman, under and by virtue of a policy of group isurance issued by the defendant to the American Woolen Company. The trial judge on motion of the defendant directed a verdict in its favor. The case is before this court upon a report, which recites certain agreed facts and evidence offered by both parties, and stipulates that if on the competent evidence there was any question for the jury, judgment is to be entered for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,500 with interest.

It is agreed that Stedman had been an employee of the American Woolen Company at its Riverina Mills from 1919 until February 17, 1925, a period which, if any insurance was in effect at the time of his death, would entitle his beneficiary to the maximum amount of $1,500 under the policy. On February 17, 1925, the department where he worked was discontinued by him employer. He was told by his foreman that he was ‘laid off,’ and his name was taken from the pay roll. At the same time the names of six other employees in the same department were taken from the pay roll, in accordance with instructions from the superintendent of the mill, and on March 15, 1925, the names of these seven employees were reported by the American Woolen Company to the defendant. Their names were thereupon listed on a master card, their insurance was marked as cancelled, and a rebate of insurance was made to the American Woolen Company.

On July 27, 1925, Stedman again commenced work at the same mill but in a different department, and his name was again placed on the pay roll. He died February 26, 1926, while still in the employ of the company. Under the terms of the policy no employee was entitled to insurance until he had completed one year of continuous service. It is agreed that when the department in which Stedman was employed was discontinued, he received no notice of any termination of his employment other that the information that he was laid off; no notice was given him by the American Woolen Company, or by any one else, that his insurance was cancelled, and no notice was given him by the defendant of his right to convert the group insurance policy into any other form of insurance. The certificate issued to the employee provided that ‘Any Employee of the Employer covered under this group policy shall, in case of the termination of employment for any reason whatsoever, be entitled to have issued to him by the Company without evidence of insurability upon application to the Company made within thiry-one days after such termination and upon the payment of the premium applicable to the class of risks to which he belongs and to the form and amount of the policy at his then attained age, a policy of life insurance in any one of the forms customarily issued by the Company, except term insurance, in an amount equal to the amount of his protection under such group insurance policy at the time of the termination.’ It is contention of the plaintiff that under this conversion...