Bolen v. Capital Life & Health Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 07 May 1946
• Docket Number: 15835.
• Citation: 38 S.E.2d 79,208 S.C. 345
• Parties: BOLEN v. CAPITAL LIFE & HEALTH INS. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

38 S.E.2d 79

208 S.C. 345

BOLEN v. CAPITAL LIFE & HEALTH INS. CO.

No. 15835.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 7, 1946

D. McK. Winter, of Columbia, for appellant.

McEachin & Townsend, of Florence, for respondent.

BAKER Chief Justice.

This case was submitted to the Judge of the Civil Court of Florence (without a jury) on the policy of insurance and the following agreed statement of facts:

'This action was commenced by service of a Summons and Complaint on behalf of Homer H. Bolen, the beneficiary under a policy of life insurance issued by the Defendant Company, on the life of Rufus B. Bolen.

'The facts are that an agent of the Defendant Company solicited a policy on the life of deceased and obtained an application for the policy dated January 1, 1945 and collected one (1) week's premium in the amount of fifty (50¢) along with the application; then on January 8 one (1) week later, collected another premium and on January 15 collected a third (3rd) premium. The policy was issued as of January 15, 1945, and bore that date and was delivered to the insured on that date. No further premiums were paid. Premiums were fifty (50¢) weekly and One and 50/100 ($1.50) Dollars were paid.

'On the afternoon of March 11, 1945, the insured lost his life in an automobile accident in Florence and proofs of death were filed and the Defendant denied liability.

'The policy provided for payment of Two Hundred Fifty ($250.00) Dollars accidental death benefit subject to the conditions therein set forth among which, the pertinent portions read as follows:

'The insuring clause reading 'In consideration of the payment of premiums herein provided for, weekly in advance, each Monday hereafter, insures the party herein named against death, hospitalization for sickness, and accident as set forth in the table below, and subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth.' Paragraph six (6) of the policy provides as follows: 'This policy shall become null and void after premiums hereon are four (4) weeks in arrears.''

There is nothing in the contract of insurance which in anywise conflicts with the agreed statement of facts; and we are unable to discern any ambiguity in paragraph 6 thereof.

From the Order of Judge Sharkey awarding judgment in favor of the beneficiary named in the policy (respondent), the insurance company appeals.

We quote from the case of Lester v. Guardian Life Insurance Company, 196 S.C. 357, 13 S.E.2d 627, 629:

'The citation of but few authorities will show that it is the settled rule in this jurisdiction that the failure to pay the premiums on a policy, as provided by the policy, will cause it to lapse. The able opinion of Mr. Justice Fishburne in the case of Kittles v. General American Life Ins. Co., 182 S.C 162, 188 S.E. 784, 789, and the authorities there cited, sets this question at rest:

"In the case of Bergholm v. Peoria Life Insurance Company of Peoria, Illinois, 284 U.S. 489, 52 S.Ct. 230, 231, 76 L.Ed. 416, the United States Supreme Court said:

"'Contracts of insurance, like other contracts, must be construed according to the terms which the parties have used, to be taken and understood, in...