Davis v. Life Ins. Co. of Virginia

• Decision Date: 12 November 1940
• Docket Number: 15161.
• Parties: DAVIS v. LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

11 S.E.2d 433

195 S.C. 406

DAVIS v. LIFE INS. CO. OF VIRGINIA.

No. 15161.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

November 12, 1940

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 relating 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 year, and that since December 13, 1938, she had made application for insurance but was rejected. To show her physical condition the respondent produced the testimony of a physician who stated he had been treating respondent from during the month of October, 1938, to the date of the trial; that she was suffering from female trouble and a kidney condition, which confined respondent to her home for about four months. The physician also testified that respondent could not be considered as an acceptable insurable risk.

A. B. Reeves, appellant's agent, testified the premium becoming due October 13, 1938, was not paid by respondent and "she sent me word not to let her insurance lapse. She was sick and was not able to pay me at that time;" that he paid four weeks' payments for respondent as she was sick and asked him not to let her policy lapse. Prior to December 13, 1938, Mr. Reeves became ill and did not return to respondent's home until December 20, 1938.

On December 13, 1938, Mr. S. J. Salmon, appellant's assistant manager, went to respondent's home and collected a premium of 34 cents. Mr. Salmon learned from Mr Reeves that he had paid some premiums for respondent and...