Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 28 November 1932
• Docket Number: 30273
• Citation: 164 Miss. 356,144 So. 554
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN v. BRIDGES

144 So. 554

164 Miss. 356

BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN v. BRIDGES

No. 30273

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 28, 1932

Division A

1 INSURANCE.

Provisions in beneficiary certificate and lodge constitution that failure to pay dues within time specified would immediately render certificate void held valid.

2. INSURANCE. Requiring additional information regarding physical condition before reinstating expelled insured member defaulting in dues payment, where he had previously applied for benefits for impaired eyesight, held not unreasonable.

Constitution of lodge provided that member expelled for nonpayment of dues should be reinstated on making application on form provided and that, where less than two calendar months had elapsed medical examiner's certificate could not be required unless in judgment of general secretary and treasurer additional information as to applicant's physical condition was necessary, and, although expelled member applied for reinstatement within two months, requirement of additional information regarding his physical condition was not an arbitrary or unreasonable exercise of judgment because he had previously applied for benefits because of serious impairment of eyesight which, at time, appeared to be progressive.

3. INSURANCE.

Lodge could refuse to reinstate insurance of member expelled for nonpayment of dues, who had impaired eyesight when expelled and was not insurable risk.

4. INSURANCE. Existence of disability when member defaulted in dues did not prevent forfeiture of rights under insurance certificate, where no claim had been submitted as required.

Constitution of lodge provided that no member should be entitled to benefits or to any right, title, or interest in or to beneficiary fund, unless dues were paid within time specified in constitution, and that member petitioning for disability should keep dues and assessments paid until claim had regularly been allowed, or, if disallowed by officer, until it had been regularly passed upon by beneficiary board, and that otherwise beneficiary certificate should be canceled, and the evidence disclosed that expelled member failed to comply with such provisions, and that thereupon forfeiture was declared.

6. INSURANCE.

Insurance contract must be construed and enforced as written.

HON. A. B. AMIS, SR., Chancellor.

APPEAL from chancery court of Jones county, HON. A. B. AMIS, SR., Chancellor.

Action by William E. Bridges against the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Reversed and decree for appellant.

W. L. Pack, Jr., of New Orleans, Louisiana, and Tom McGrath, of Cleveland, Ohio, for appellant.

Any member of this lodge failing or refusing to pay his dues and assessments, as required by Section 129, becomes expelled without any notice or further action whatsoever, and at that instant his beneficiary certificate shall be void, and all rights and benefits of beneficiary membership shall cease and be determined.

No. 141, of the 1928 Constitution.

The above provision is valid and reasonable.

Odd Fellows Benefit Association v. Smith, 101 Miss. 332, 58 So. 100; Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Hynde, 134 Miss. 705, 99 So. 259; New York Life Insurance v. Alexander, 122 Miss. 813, 85 So. 93, 15 A.L.R. 314; Independent Order of Sons and Daughters of Jacob v. Enoch, 108 Miss. 302, 66 So. 744; 45 Corpus Juris, p. 98; Col. 3 Couch's Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, sec. 627, page 2009 et seq.; 14 Ruling Case Law, pages 975-977.

It is likewise beyond question that members of a fraternal benefit society are charged with notice of the society's constitution and by-laws.

Sovereign Camp W. O. W. v. Hynde, 134 Miss. 705, 99 So. 259; Odd Fellows Benefit Ass'n v. Smith, 101 Miss. 332, 58 So. 100.

If a member of a beneficial or fraternal society has been suspended or expelled or has otherwise forfeited the right to benefits, the society is under no obligation to reinstate him unless its rules require it to do so.

45 C. J., p. 120, sec. 102.

Where the law of the society require a member seeking reinstatement to be in good health at the time of the application and furnish a certificate to that effect, or submit to a new medical examination, and have such examination accepted by the medical board, such requirements are conditions precedent to reinstatement and are valid, and compliance therewith is not excused by the insanity of the member.

45 C. J., page 122, sec. 104.

The condition usually required to be complied with is proof of the good health or insurability of the insured. Where the policy contains such a condition, payment of the premium alone is not sufficient to procure a reinstatement, but the insured must furnish the required proof of good health, and the insurer may make the decision of its own officers conclusive on this question, and the courts will not review the decision of such officer, at least where there are facts bearing upon the question of health which might influence the sound judgment and good conscience of an officer to decide against reinstatement.

14 R. C. L., p. 989, sec. 162.

A provision in a policy of life insurance that delinquent members may be reinstated if approved by the medical director and president, by giving reasonable assurance that they are in continued good health, is valid and reasonable, and the required approval is not merely a ministerial act, but involves the exercise of judgment and discretion. So, if a member of a beneficiary society has forfeited his right to benefits the society may lawfully and validly impose reasonable terms or conditions for reinstatement, such as that he be in good health at the time.

6 Couch's Cyclopedia of Insurance Law, pages 4951-4952, section 1377.

There is no absolute right of readmission, but readmission can be had only in the manner and upon the condition required by the Constitution. The appellee did not bring himself within those conditions, because he was not physically qualified. Under the express porvisions of Section 151 of the Constitution, his application, so far as his physical condition was concerned had to be passed upon in the same manner as if he had been applying for membership by initiation. Clearly the Brotherhood could not be compelled to accept as an original member an applicant who had practically lost the sight of one eye, and if it could reject an original application for that reason, it could as certainly reject an application for reinstatement. So far as the requirement of good physical condition was concerned, appellee stood on exactly the same basis as if he had never been a member of the order.

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Dee, 101 Texas, 597, 111 S.W. 396.

Unless property rights are involved, the acts and decisions of the officers of voluntary associations, when made in good faith, are conclusive and will not be disturbed by the courts. Especially is this true in such matters as the acceptance or rejection of applications for membership, and the reinstatement of expelled members.

7 Corpus Juris, pp. 1118-1120, sec. 81; 14 Ruling Case Law, page 989; Conway v. Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co., 62 Wash. 49, 112 P. 1106, 40 L.R.A. (N.S.) 148 and note.

The mere existence of the disability does not operate to prevent a forfeiture, regardless of whether any claim or proof had been submitted to the society.

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Alexander, 122 Miss. 813, 85 So. 93, 15 A.L.R. 314; Berry v. Lamar Life Ins. Co., 142 So. 445; Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 76 L.Ed. 306.

F. B. Collins, of Laurel, for appellee.

According to the provisions of the constitution and by-laws and certificate of insurance appellee had a certain vested interest in this certificate of insurance, and that interest was to the extent that he had a right to have same reinstated upon submitting an application for reinstatement and paying the dues and assessments and arrears.

The appellee had completely lost the sight of one eye, which, under the provisions of the constitution and bylaws, vested in him the full right to the payment of the face value of this certificate.

The refusal of the appellant company under the facts in this case and under the law in the case to readmit the appellee was without foundation of right either in law or equity, and was therefore arbitrary, unreasonable, and unjust, and to put it in the words of the chancellor "unreasonable and void."

If, however, reinstatement is refused arbitrarily and in bad faith it seems that the acts of the insurer may be set aside by the courts.

14 R. C. L., page 989.

If a member of a beneficiary society has forfeited his right to benefits, the society may lawfully and validly impose reasonable terms or conditions for reinstatement, such as that he be in good health at the time.

6 Couch's Cyc. of Insurance Law, page 4951, sec. 1377.

Under the provisions of the constitution and by-laws if the loss of this eye occurred while the policy was in full force and effect, the appellee then had a vested right to recover the full face value of this certificate, and according to the undisputed testimony in the record and the finding of the chancellor the loss of this eye did not in any way impair the general health of appellee or affect him as an insurable risk except for the loss of this eye.

The officials of an insurance company cannot arbitrarily and unreasonably refuse to reinstate the policy of insurance of a member of a benevolent association, and the actions of such officials is subject to review by the courts.

Van Housten v. Pine, 38 N.J.Eq. 72; Leonard v Prudential Insurance Company, 128 Wis. 348, 116 Am. St. Rep. 50, 107 N.W. 646; Saerwein v. Jamour, 32 Mich. 701; McNeil v. So. Tier Masonic Relief...