Corcoran v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York

• Decision Date: 04 January 1897
• Docket Number: 116
• Citation: 36 A. 203,179 Pa. 132
• Parties: Frances Corcoran, for the use of Wm. H. Dill, for the use of S. B. Philson, cashier, v. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellants
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

36 A. 203

179 Pa. 132

Frances Corcoran, for the use of Wm. H. Dill, for the use of S. B. Philson, cashier,

v.

The Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellants

No. 116

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

January 4, 1897

Argued October 14, 1896

Appeal, No. 116, Oct. T., 1896, by defendants, from judgment of C.P. Somerset County, May T., 1895, No. 2, on verdict for plaintiffs. Reversed.

Assumpsit on a policy of life insurance.

The facts appear by the charge of the court and the opinion of the Supreme Court.

The court charged in part as follows:

On the 10th day of August, 1877, James Corcoran took an insurance policy in the defendant company on his life for $4,000 payable in the event of his death to his wife, Frances Corcoran, for her sole use, if living, and if not living, to their children or the guardian of the children for their use. The premiums were paid by James Corcoran. On the 13th of October, 1890, the policy was assigned by Corcoran and his wife to Wm. H. Dill, for the nominal sum of $1.00 expressed in the assignment, but the plaintiff contends that the real consideration was a debt owing by Corcoran to Dill, which was represented by a note in the plaintiff's bank, and the predecessors of that note. On the part of the defendant it is contended that it was not a debt of Corcoran, but of the Presque Isle Lumber Company, and that Corcoran was merely an indorser. This, gentlemen, is a question of fact which you will determine from the evidence.

If Dill was a creditor of Corcoran when the assignment was made, as the plaintiff claims, his title to the policy was good. If the assignment was without consideration, no title passed. If Dill acquired an interest by the assignment to him, he could assign it to another, and he did assign it to S. B. Philson in March, 1892. It is not denied that Philson obtained it on an ample consideration, and he had a perfect right to be made whole on the insurance, unless he made a mistake in taking the steps to secure himself.

When he received the policy he advised the company at its office in New York by a letter in evidence, dated March 29, 1892, and made some inquiries as to the steps necessary to secure himself as the assignee of the policy. The letter reads as follows:

"MEYERSDALE Somerset County, Pa., March 29, 1892. "SEC'Y OF THE MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO., New York.

"Dear Sir: -- On October 13, 1890, policy No. 185,117 in your company was assigned by Frances Corcoran and James Corcoran to Wm. H. Dill; of this assignment no doubt you have a record. On March 10, 1892, Mr. Dill assigned the same to me. Shall I forward the policy for your acceptance of the same or will the assignment be sufficient if it is presented for acceptance? Your reply in the enclosed envelope will greatly oblige.

Very respectfully yours,

"S. B. PHILSON, Cashier."

On the 2d day of April, 1892, the company, by its corresponding secretary, replied as follows:

"Your favor of the 29th ult. received, and we beg to state that we have no record of the transfers of policy 185,117 -- Corcoran, as mentioned in your letter. If we are furnished with duplicates or certified copies of the transfers (by a Notary) we will file them as notices of claim, as the children have a contingent interest in the policy. Please communicate with the company through our General Agent, Wm. H. Lambert, Philadelphia, Pa.

Yours Truly,

"H. E. DUNCAN, JR., Corresponding Secretary."

In pursuance of this correspondence, the plaintiff says, he sent the policy to his brother in law, H. F. Gardill, in Philadelphia, for presentation at the Philadelphia office of the company, and you have the testimony of Gardill as to his submitting the policy, with the assignments, at said office, to one of the clerical force, in the absence of Mr. Lambert.

The policy provides in the fifth clause, on its face, that "the contract between the parties hereto is completely set forth in this policy and application therefor, taken together, and none of its terms can be modified, nor any forfeiture under it waived, except by an agreement in writing signed by the President or Secretary of the company, whose authority for this purpose will not be delegated." On the back of the policy, under the word "Assignments," it is provided: "This company will not take notice of any assignment of this policy, until a duplicate or certified copy thereof shall be delivered to the company at its principal office; and under no circumstances will the company assume any responsibility for the validity of such assignment. If any claim be made under an assignment, proof of interest to the extent of the claim will be required."

The defendant, the insurance company, now contends that there can be no recovery in this case because these provisions, which we have read, were not strictly complied with. It is conceded on part of the plaintiff that they were not strictly complied with, but he contends that such compliance with the terms of the policy was waived by the properly constituted representatives of the company. . . .

[You will first inquire from the evidence in the case whether the terms which we have read were intended to be departed from, to be dispensed with, to be set aside; and whether instead of reporting at the New York office, the principal office of the company, the plaintiff was directed to apply to the office in Philadelphia; whether he was turned over from the principal office in New York to the office in Philadelphia. If he was, then it is not necessary that he should report to the New York office; it was not necessary then that he should file his papers in the principal office at New York, if the officers of the company in New York meant by their correspondence, and by any other evidence you have in the case, to turn the plaintiff over to the Philadelphia office.]

[There is still another branch of this evidence which is relied on to make out a waiver, and that refers to what took place in Philadelphia. Having been referred to the Philadelphia office, the plaintiff did not file a certified copy of the assignment, nor a duplicate thereof; but he produces a witness who says he went into the office with the original policy, having upon it the original assignments, and presented it to the clerical force of that office. The fact that Mr. Lambert was not himself seen cannot defeat the waiver, if the person who represented him in the office did what was tantamount to a waiver. Mr. Gardill says that he handed the policy to one of the persons engaged in the office, one of the clerks, and states that after some examination of it and reference to one of the books, in which he thinks some writing was done by the clerk, the policy was returned to him. It does not appear that he was told that anything more was required. He was not informed that he must produce a duplicate or certified copy, but he says the policy was returned to him, and he took it and returned it to Mr. Philson. If that was meant to dispense with the necessity of producing a duplicate or certified copy, then there can be no complaint interposed now to defeat this action that such a copy was not furnished, because it would amount to a waiver.]

Plaintiff's points and answers thereto were as follows:

1. If the jury believe that shortly after the assignment of the policy by Wm. H. Dill to S. B. Philson, and in the lifetime of James Corcoran, the said S. B. Philson notified the defendant company of the assignment of Frances Corcoran and James Corcoran, dated October 13, 1890, to Wm. H. Dill, and of the assignment by W. H. Dill to said S. B. Philson, dated March 10, 1892, with the inquiry if he should forward the policy for the acceptance of the company, or if the assignments would be sufficient if presented for acceptance with request for reply; and that H. E. Duncan, Jr., corresponding secretary of defendant company, in writing directed said Philson to communicate with the company through the company's general agent, Wm. H. Lambert, of Philadelphia, Pa., and that said Philson promptly thereafter, in April, 1892, caused the original policy, with the original assignments attached thereto, to be exhibited at the office of said general agent, Wm. H. Lambert, at Philadelphia, Pa., during business hours, to one of the clerks of said Lambert in charge of the business of said general agent -- the said Lambert then being temporarily absent from the office -- and that said clerk examined said policy and assignments, and after examination carried the said policy and assignments to a book or record in said office and examined and compared the policy, assignments and such book or record, and wrote or feigned to write in or upon said book, and afterwards returned the policy and assignments to the person who at said Philson's direction had presented them; and that said Philson subsequently, and in the lifetime of said James Corcoran, had correspondence with the defendant company at New York, stating to the company in said correspondence that he held the policy as collateral security, and asking if the company would purchase it if he acquired an assignment of it for its cash value -- an absolute assignment; and correspondence also with said Wm. H. Lambert, general agent, also in the lifetime of James Corcoran, inquiring if all payments had been made on said policy, and if it was good for $4,000 in the event of the death of James Corcoran, then the jury may infer that the company waived the requirements referred to in the policy that the company will not take notice of any assignment of the policy until a duplicate or certified copy thereof shall be delivered to the company at its principal office. Answer: If you find the facts as given in the point, and that the company by directing the plaintiff to communicate...