Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc. v. Norman
| Decision Date | 13 January 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 860529,860529 |
| Citation | 237 Va. 33,375 S.E.2d 724 |
| Parties | CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY v. Lenora D. NORMAN. Record |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Lance A. Jackson (Edward L. Breeden, III, Breeden, MacMillan & Green, on briefs), Norfolk, for appellant.
L. Steven Emmert, Virginia Beach, for appellee.
Present: CARRICO, C.J., POFF, * COMPTON, STEPHENSON, RUSSELL, THOMAS, and WHITING, JJ.
Plaintiff Lenora D. Norman filed a motion for judgment against CUNA Mutual Insurance Society (CUNA) alleging that her husband, Robert D. Norman, had been covered at the time of his death by a CUNA life insurance policy and that CUNA had disclaimed coverage. CUNA denied liability, and the case was tried to the circuit court sitting without a jury.
Robert D. Norman, a veteran of 30 years' service in the United States Navy, retired from active duty as a Captain in 1975. On August 20, 1980, he executed a promissory note representing a $10,000 loan he had acquired from Virginia Beach Navy Federal Credit Union (the credit union) of which he was a member. CUNA had issued the credit union a group credit life insurance policy insuring payment of a member's loan that is unpaid when due.
Captain Norman's loan was due August 20, 1981. On August 5, 1981, Norman and the credit union agreed to postpone the due date. The parties memorialized their agreement in the following language typed on the credit union's stationery, subscribed by Captain Norman and witnessed by a credit union representative: "I, Robert Norman do agree to pay off my share secured loan on October 1, 1982." Captain Norman died on October 14, 1982. The unpaid principal and interest accrued on his loan at the time of his death amounted to $11,191.77.
CUNA maintained at trial that Captain Norman was never insured under its policy because, at the time the loan was closed, he was not "then physically able to perform, or within a reasonable time to resume, the usual duties of his livelihood" as provided by the "physical requirements" clause of the policy. In support of its defense, CUNA introduced evidence to show that a federal administrative law judge previously had determined in 1980 that Captain Norman had been disabled within the meaning of the Social Security Act since February 1979. The Act as applied March 6, 1980 provided:
The term "disability" means inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than twelve months.
42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1). At the hearing before the federal judge, Captain Norman had testified that his physical condition compelled him to abandon several attempts at self-employment ventures following his retirement from the navy. In a letter dated March 18, 1980, Captain Norman's attending physician reported that his patient suffered recurrent cancer of the prostate and that the life expectancy of 90 percent of such patients was less than five years.
Plaintiff testified that her husband had earned no money in his self-employment ventures but that the pension he had received from the navy had been sufficient for their support. In a letter opinion addressed to the "physical requirements" clause of the CUNA policy, the trial court found that "from 1975 until the date of this loan on August 20, 1980, Captain Norman's 'livelihood' consisted of being a retired naval officer" and that he "was capable of fully performing the 'usual duties' of being a retiree". Based upon that finding, the trial court entered judgment against CUNA for $11,191.77, plus costs and attorney's fees in the sum of $2,797.94.
On appeal, CUNA argues that the trial judge's conclusion that Captain Norman met the physical-requirements test of the CUNA policy is contrary to the evidence that the decedent had satisfied the disability definition of the Social Security Act. That argument presupposes that the two standards are the same and that the trial judge construed the language of the CUNA policy to mean something different. Thus, CUNA tacitly acknowledges that its policy language is ambiguous.
The rule of construction consistently applied in this Commonwealth is that ambiguous language in insurance policies must be interpreted most strongly against the scrivener and in favor of the insured. See, e.g., Hill v. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins., 237 Va. 148, ----, 375 S.E.2d 727, 730 (1989) (this day decided); United Services Auto. Assoc. v. Webb, 235 Va. 655, 658, 369 S.E.2d 196, 198 (1988); Caldwell v. Transportation Co., 234 Va. 639, 642-43, 364 S.E.2d 1, 3 (1988); St. Paul Ins. v. Nusbaum & Co., 227 Va. 407, 411-12, 316 S.E.2d 734, 736 (1984). Here, the dispute springs principally from construction of the word "livelihood". In effect, CUNA asks us to interpret the word, considering the context in which it is employed in its policy, to mean gainful employment, the "usual duties" of which a credit union member must be "physically able to perform, or ... to resume" to qualify for coverage. The dictionary definition of "livelihood" is not so restrictive: "means of support or subsistence...." ...." Webster's New International Dictionary (3d ed. 1971).
Plaintiff testified that, following her husband's retirement from the navy, his pension was sufficient for their support. Her evidence satisfies the dictionary definition of "livelihood". In keeping with settled rules of construction, the trial judge applied that definition in favor of coverage, and we cannot say that he misconstrued the ambiguous language CUNA chose to employ.
In an alternative argument, CUNA contends that it is not liable because, it says, its policy with the credit union had lapsed. In a letter dated January 1, 1981, the credit union advised its members that, effective March 1, 1981, it would continue to pay the premiums on the CUNA policy for loans closed before that date but that credit life insurance coverage on "all new or refinanced loans" closed after that date would be at the option and expense of the borrower. Quoting from Black's Law Dictionary (5th ed. 1979), CUNA says that to "finance" means "to supply with funds...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tiger Fibers, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Ins. Co., 1:07cv1106 (AJT/TCB).
...of the insurer." Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. St. John, 259 Va. 71, 75, 524 S.E.2d 649, 651 (2000) (citing CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc. v. Norman, 237 Va. 33, 38, 375 S.E.2d 724, 726-27 (1989)). Specifically, the Court should consider "whether reasonable minds could differ in the interpretation of po......
-
Grossberg v. Travelers Indem. Co. of America
...in insurance policies must be interpreted most strongly against the scrivener and in favor of the insured.” Cuna Mut. Ins. Soc'y v. Norman, 237 Va. 33, 375 S.E.2d 724, 725 (1989) (citations omitted). As Travelers has correctly demonstrated, the issue now before the Court is not entirely nov......
-
REVI, LLC v. Chi. Title Ins. Co.
...claim for breach of contract, nor is it a codified version of the common law claim for bad faith. See CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc'y v. Norman, 237 Va. 33, 38, 375 S.E.2d 724, 726–27 (1989) ; State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Floyd, 235 Va. 136, 142, 366 S.E.2d 93, 96 (1988). Rather, the section auth......
-
Cent. Laundry, LLC v. Ill. Union Ins. Co.
...context, Virginia courts ask whether an insurer's denial of coverage amounts to being reasonably debatable. CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc'y v. Norman , 237 Va. 33, 39, 375 S.E.2d 724 (1989). While Plaintiffs argue that Defendant provided merely a "tautological statement that COVID claims are not pollu......