Curdts v. Pioneer Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 12 May 1932
• Docket Number: 13409.
• Citation: 164 S.E. 438,166 S.C. 94
• Parties: CURDTS v. PIONEER LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

164 S.E. 438

166 S.C. 94

CURDTS v. PIONEER LIFE INS. CO.

No. 13409.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

May 12, 1932

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Greenville County; John S Wilson, Judge.

Action by Ruth Curdts against the Pioneer Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Mann & Plyler, of Greenville, for appellant.

C. G Wyche, of Greenville, for respondent.

STABLER J.

This is an action on a policy of life insurance. The complaint alleges:

"(1) That the plaintiff is the widow of Edward C. Curdts, Jr. deceased, and is a resident of the County of Greenville, State of South Carolina; that the defendant, Pioneer Life Insurance Company, is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of South Carolina as a life insurance company, and as such is authorized to do business in this state, and maintains offices and agents in the County of Greenville, State of South Carolina.

"(2) That on or about the 21st day of December, 1927, the defendant, by its duly authorized officers and agents, executed and delivered to Edward C. Curdts, Jr., of Greenville, S. C., its policy of insurance in writing upon the life of Edward C. Curdts, Jr., whereby said defendant agreed to pay plaintiff, his wife, as beneficiary, upon the death of Edward C. Curdts, Jr., the sum of Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars.

"(3) That the said Edward C. Curdts, Jr., died on the 7th day of February, 1930, and due notice of his death was given to the defendant immediately thereafter, and plaintiff has fulfilled every condition of the policy on her part.

"(4) That no part of said sum agreed to be paid by the defendant in accordance with the terms of said policy has been paid and there is now due and owing to this plaintiff, as beneficiary, the sum of Four Thousand ($4,000.00) Dollars, together with interest thereon at the legal rate from March, 1929."

The defendant, by its answer, admitted the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the complaint; also that the insured died on or about February 7, 1930, and that the company had denied liability on the policy of insurance. For a further defense, it is alleged that the "said policy of life insurance lapsed and ceased to be of force prior to the death of the said Edward C. Curdts, Jr., by reason of the non-payment of premiums as required in and by the terms of said insurance policy contract, and this defendant therefore is not liable to the plaintiff herein for any sums whatsoever, the said policy not being of force for any benefits on the date of the death of the insured."

The case was tried at the April, 1931, term of Court of common pleas for Greenville county; Hon. John S. Wilson presiding. Only one witness was called, Mrs. Ruth Curdts, who testified that she was a resident of Greenville; and that she married Edward C. Curdts, Jr., on November 22, 1927, and lived with him until February 7, 1930, the date of his death. Plaintiff then rested her case, whereupon counsel for the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit upon the following grounds:

"There is no allegation in the complaint that the policy was of force on the date of the death of the insured; there is no proof that the policy was in force on the date of the death of the insured; and there is no proof that any premiums were paid on account of said policy.

"Further, that said policy of insurance sued on is not offered in evidence and there is no evidence of its terms."

This motion being refused, counsel stated that the defendant would offer no testimony, but asked for a directed verdict on the same grounds as those of the motion for a nonsuit, and this additional ground: "That no contract is offered in evidence; on the ground there is no proof of the payment of any premium; there is no showing that there is a policy contract, no showing or allegation that the policy contract sued on was of force on the date of the death of the insured."

This motion the court likewise refused, but directed a verdict for plaintiff upon the ground, stated in substance, that "the defendant had admitted all of the material allegations...