Connecticut Indem. Ass'n v. Grogan's Adm'r

• Decision Date: 11 October 1899
• Citation: 52 S.W. 959
• Parties: CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY ASS'N v. GROGAN'S ADM'R. [1]
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

52 S.W. 959

CONNECTICUT INDEMNITY ASS'N v. GROGAN'S ADM'R. ^[1]

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 11, 1899

Appeal from circuit court, Calloway county.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by John J. Grogan's administrator against the Connecticut Indemnity Association on a policy of life insurance. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Robertson Robbins & Thomas and B. A. Neale, for appellant.

Greer &amp Reed and J. H. Coleman, for appellee.

GUFFY J.

This appeal is prosecuted from a judgment of the Calloway circuit court. It appears from the record that John J. Grogan made application to the appellant for a life insurance policy in the sum of $2,000, which application was accepted, and the policy issued. It seems that the application stated that the policy should not be valid unless the premium was paid by the insured when in good health. It appears that the policy was issued the 4th of September, 1896, and was delivered to Dr. Coleman about the 9th of September, for Grogan, and the premium paid by him, or, at least, the balance of the premium paid; it appearing that, by some arrangement between the insured and the agent, Scott, five dollars was paid or settled at the time of the application. It appears that the insured was sick at the time of the delivery of the policy, and that he died on the 12th of September, but that the agent, Scott, knew at the time of the delivery that Grogan was sick, and had typhoid fever. It further appears that Dr. Coleman made no report to Grogan but advised his father that he had the policy, and that the father took it to Grogan's wife (he not having the combination to Grogan's safe), and that the wife said she was busy, and for Dr. Coleman to put it in his safe and keep it, which it seems he did. The defense is that there was no delivery, and no payment of the premium, as required by the contract. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's testimony, the defendant asked a peremptory instruction to the jury to find for defendant, which was refused, and defendant declined to offer any evidence, and, on motion of plaintiff, the jury was instructed to find for plaintiff, which was done, and judgment entered thereon.

If it be conceded that the application is part of the policy, and that, in order to make the policy valid, the payment of the premium must be made when the insured was in good health, yet it seems clear to us that such a condition...