Crice v. Illinois Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 92 S.W. 560,122 Ky. 572
• Parties: CRICE v. ILLINOIS LIFE INS. CO.
• Decision Date: 12 April 1906
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

92 S.W. 560

122 Ky. 572

CRICE v. ILLINOIS LIFE INS. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

April 12, 1906

Appeal from Circuit Court, Ballard County.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Elizabeth Crice against the Illinois Life Insurance Company. From a judgment of dismissal, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

John W Ray and J. D. White, for appellant.

Robbins & Thomas, and Long & Price, for appellee.

SETTLE J.

On the 6th day of February, 1900, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of Kentucky, in consideration of $54.78 then paid it, by Frederick G. Crice, and his undertaking to thereafter annually pay it, on the same date, a like sum, issued and delivered to him a policy of insurance on his life, numbered 32,000, whereby it agreed to pay at his death, to his wife the appellant, Elizabeth Crice, the sum of $2,000. By a written contract of date August 1, 1902, the Mutual Life Insurance Company of Kentucky, for a valuable consideration and with the approval of its policy holders, sold and assigned its assets, premium lists, and property of every kind to the appellee, Illinois Life Insurance Company, and the latter company thereby became subrogated to its rights assumed its liabilities to the holders of its policies, and issued to each of them a certificate to that effect. The Mutual Life Insurance Company of Kentucky then quit business and the premiums that were thereafter paid on the policies it had issued were received from the policy holders by the Illinois Life Insurance Company. The policy of $2,000 on the life of Frederick G. Crice was of the number upon which the latter company, under its contract with the Mutual Life Insurance Company of Kentucky, became liable. On August 7, 1904, Frederick G. Crice died in Ballard county, and shortly thereafter his widow, the appellant, Elizabeth Crice, instituted this action against appellee in the Ballard circuit court to recover of it $2,000, the amount of insurance specified in the policy referred to; it being alleged in the petition that the policy, though in appellee's possession at the time of her husband's death, was then in full force, that appellee by virtue of its contract with the Mutual Life Insurance Company of Kentucky assumed its payment, and is liable therefor, and that appellant, as the beneficiary named in the policy, is entitled to its proceeds. The answer of appellee admits the contract with the Mutual Life Insurance Company, and its undertaking to carry out the contracts of that company with its policy holders, including Frederick G. Crice, and also admits its possession of the policy in controversy, but denies any liability thereon, or that it was in force at the time of his death. It is averred in the answer that, after the payment by Frederick G. Crice of four annual premiums upon the policy in question, he borrowed of appellee $105, for which he at the time executed to it his promissory note of date May 14, 1903, due one year thereafter, and to secure its payment assigned and delivered to appellee the policy in controversy, as permitted by a clause in the policy containing this provision: "This policy is issued and accepted upon the express condition that the said Frederick G. Crice may, with the consent of the company, at any time assign it, or before assignment, change the beneficiaries therein, or make any other change." The answer contains, in substance, the further averments that, after thus executing to appellee his note for the $105 borrowed of it, and assigning his policy of insurance as collateral security for its payment, Frederick G. Crice failed to pay the annual premiums on the policy which became due February 6, 1904, and by reason thereof the policy by its terms lapsed and became void, except as to its cash value, which at the time of the default in the payment of the premiums was $118, and that on April 25, 1904, Frederick G. Crice notified appellee that he had determined, instead of reviving the policy, to accept its cash or surrender value, of $118, and appellee at his request settled with him upon that basis, and, after deducting the note of $105 he owed appellee, there was left due him of the cash surrender...