Blass v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 01 April 1918
• Docket Number: No. 12776.,12776.
• Citation: 202 S.W. 270
• Parties: BLASS v. MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

202 S.W. 270

BLASS v. MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO.

No. 12776.

Kansas City Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 1, 1918.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Adair County; J. A. Cooley, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Suit by Mary A. Blass, administratrix, against the Missouri State Life Insurance Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed

Charles E. Murrell, of Kirksville, and Jeffries & Corum, of St. Louis, for appellant. Higbee & Mills and Campbell & Ellison, all of Kirksville, for respondent.

BLAND, J.

This is a suit on a life insurance policy in the sum of $7,000, issued by defendant on the life of Dr. Bernard Blass on the 27th day of January, 1914. The insured died on the 12th day of November, 1916. Defendant refused to pay the policy, and the plaintiff, as administratrix of the estate of the insured, brought this suit, recovered a verdict and judgment for the amount of the policy, and defendant has appealed.

A contested issue at the trial was whether the insured had paid the premiums due on the 5th day of January, 1915, and the 5th day of January, 1916. Defendant introduced much evidence tending to show that said premiums were not paid, and defendant says that the evidence introduced on its behalf was so strong, and that on behalf of plaintiff to rebut defendant's evidence on this point was so weak, that it did not raise an issue, and that this court, as a matter of law, should brush it aside, and, regarding the judgment as the offspring not of a fair and impartial effort on the part of the judge and jury to discharge their duties, but of an improper motive, interpose the restraining hand to prevent the accomplishment of flagrant wrong (citing Bowlin v. Union Pac. R. R. Co., 125 Mo. App. loc. cit. 423, 102 S. W. 631, and like cases).

The evidence on the part of the defendant to sustain its contention that the premiums were not paid tended to show that the insured had great difficulty in paying the first premium; that he was unable to pay cash, but gave a note for the same, and that the note was not paid when due, but required about 30 visits to the insured by the soliciting agent and 2 by another agent to collect the note, and that the collections on this note were made in very small payments; that the premium due on January 5, 1915, or the second one, remained unpaid, and the same soliciting agent called upon the insured for this second premium, but the insured said that he did not have any money, and did not want to continue the policy. A number of employés and officers of the defendant, some who had charge of the collection of premiums and a great many who had not, testified that neither the premium for 1915 nor the one for 1916, was paid, but defendant did not have the testimony of the cashier of the company (who, at the time of the trial, was out of the employ of the company), with whom one of the officers of the company had a conversation the day before the trial, although it had present at the trial apparently most of the other officers of the company. Defendant's witnesses further testified that various letters were written to the insured, requesting the payment of the premiums and suggesting reinstatement, that were not answered ; that the premiums were never paid, and that the policy was canceled; that the various books and records of the company showed the failure to pay the premiums, the cancellation of the policy, and the failure to reinstate. There was also testimony for defendant that plaintiff was told the insurance was canceled in October, 1916. Plaintiff denied this.

To rebut this evidence, plaintiff introduced evidence tending to show that in the fall of 1916 the insured was in very bad health; that his office had been burned containing all of his papers, and that she, his wife, desiring to know definitely that the premiums on his policy had been paid, visited the home office of the company and inquired of a man on the first floor of the building, who, as shown by the evidence, was the cashier of the company, whether the premiums had been paid; that this man telephoned upstairs to the...