Carland v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assur. Corp.

• Decision Date: 06 March 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 230.)
• Citation: 183 S.W. 965
• Parties: CARLAND v. GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE & LIFE ASSUR. CORP., Limited.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

183 S.W. 965

CARLAND v. GENERAL ACCIDENT, FIRE & LIFE ASSUR. CORP., Limited.

(No. 230.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

March 6, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pulaski County; Guy Fulk, Judge.

Suit by Mrs. Annie E. Carland, administratrix, against the General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corporation, Limited. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This suit was brought by the administratrix of the estate of J. W. Carland, deceased, to recover $192, the benefit provided in the policy of health and accident insurance issued to her intestate. It was alleged in the complaint that J. W. Carland entered into the contract with appellee company on the 1st day of May, 1914, whereby it agreed and undertook to insure him against accident and illness in the sum of $60 per month, for a period not exceeding 24 consecutive months of total disability resulting from either illness or accident; that he became totally disabled on the 17th day of May by illness and so continued from that day to the day of his death, August 24, 1914; that he had fully complied with the terms of his contract of insurance, and that the company was notified of his illness and disability on July 1, 1914, and a report of his attending physician was furnished and it denied liability thereon on August 10th. A copy of the policy was exhibited with the complaint. The answer denied any liability on the policy, and alleged that its liability for indemnity for sickness was limited by paragraph E of the policy, which provision it pleaded in defense of the suit, as follows:

"Or at the rate of $60 per month for the sum of ____ consecutive days, after the first week, that the assured is necessarily, totally, and continuously confined within the house, and therein regularly visited by a legally qualified physician by reason of illness that is contracted and begins after this policy had been maintained in continuous force for 60 days."

The policy was introduced in evidence with the receipts for premiums and the undisputed testimony shows that the deceased was taken sick on the 17th day of May, 1914, after the issuance of the policy on May 1st, and died from the illness on August 24th, thereafter. The premiums were due on the 1st of each month and all paid, including the one due August 1, 1914.

Mrs. Norman, the daughter of the deceased, testified that when she paid the July premium, she asked the collector when they could collect the indemnity, and she answered, "Not until the expiration of the illness." She explained that they needed the money, and would like to have part of it, but the agent said it never had been done and further:

"Q. Well, was that before or after you paid the premium? A. It was after — after I paid it. I told her that father...