Davis v. Life Ins. Co. Of Va., No. 15161.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
• Writing for the Court: BAKER, Justice
• Citation: 11 S.E.2d 433
• Docket Number: No. 15161.
• Decision Date: 12 November 1940
• Parties: DAVIS. v. LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA.

11 S.E.2d 433

DAVIS.
v.
LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA.

No. 15161.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Nov. 12, 1940.

[11 S.E.2d 433]

Appeal from Richland County Court; A. W. Holman, Judge.

Action by Bessie A. Davis against the Life Insurance Company of Virginia for alleged wrongful and fraudulent lapse of a policy of insurance. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Thomas, Cain & Black, of Columbia, for appellant.

E. J. Best and W. P. Cook, both of Columbia, for respondent.

BAKER, Justice.

The respondent, Bessie A. Davis, instituted this action against the appellant, The Life Insurance Company of Virginia, asking for actual and punitive damages by reason of the alleged wrongful and fraudulent lapse of a policy of insurance issued to her by the appellant on April 30, 1934, in the face amount of $500. The action was tried on March 28, 1940, resulting in a verdict for the respondent in the sum of $300 actual and $300 punitive damages. The appellant moved, during the trial, for a nonsuit and directed verdict, and, after the trial, for a new trial, all of which motions were refused by the trial judge.

The type of policy issued to the respondent, by the appellant, and upon which this suit is based, is that form of contract known as an "Industrial Policy", having a weekly premium, in this instance the weekly premium being the sum of 34 cents, and having a grace period of four weeks.

The appellant in oral argument waived its exceptions creating any question relat ing to actual damages, leaving for consideration the issue of punitive damages. The appellant then on appeal, admits the existence of sufficient evidence to warrant a jury's finding of a breach of the contract of insurance, but denies that the breach of the contract was accomplished with a fraudulent intention, and accompanied by a fraudulent act. The solution of this question requires a discussion of the facts.

The respondent's testimony showed the purchase of the policy on April 30, 1934, and the payment of the weekly premium by herself, or some one in her employment, up to and including December 13, 1938, and that on December 20, 1938, respondent offered the weekly premium of 34 cents to agents of appellant, who refused to accept the tender, thereby causing a lapse of the policy. The respondent also testified that she had been sick for a long time and confined to her home, and a portion of the time to her bed, from the first of October, 1938, until some time in April of the following...