Douglas v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 June 1927
• Docket Number: No. 16050.,16050.
• Citation: 297 S.W. 87
• Parties: DOUGLAS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

297 S.W. 87

DOUGLAS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 16050.

Kansas City Court of Appeals, Missouri.

June 27, 1927.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Brown Harris, Special Judge.

Action by Ida Douglas against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

William C. Michaels and Henry I. Eager, both of Kansas City (Haff, Meservey, Michaels, Blackmer & Newkirk, of Kansas City, and William J. Tully and Harry Cole Bates, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Harry A. Hall, J. C. Hargus, M. A. Fyke, and Fenton Hume, all of Kansas City, for respondent.

WILLIAMS, C.

This is an action to recover $900 of life insurance. Plaintiff had judgment, and defendant appealed. The evidence shows that the Hooven & Allison Company took out a group policy of insurance on the lives of its employees, among whom was Isaac A. Douglas, the husband of plaintiff. The Hooven & Allison Company was engaged in the manufacture of twine and cordage and had a factory in North Kansas City, Clay county, Mo.

The Hooven & Allison Company wrote a letter to its employees, after the policy was taken out, who were included in the group policy of insurance, informing them of that fact. A certificate was issued by the defendant company. The certificate recites if death occurred while the employee is in the employ of the employer, the amount of insurance in force on said employee, in accordance with group policy as above, will be paid to Ida Douglas, beneficiary.

There is no attack made upon the petition. The answer pleads, among other things, that Isaac Douglas was not in the employ of the employer at the time of his death. A jury was waived, and the court made special findings. As there is substantial evidence to justify the findings, they, with some additions, are hereby adopted as the statement of the facts in the case:

(1) "The court adopts as its findings the facts and matters set forth in the stipulation signed by the parties and received in evidence as Exhibit 1, as well as the exhibits referred to in said stipulation."

(2) "The Hooven & Allison Company's week ended each Wednesday night. During the week ending Wednesday, January 26, 1921, Isaac A. Douglas worked at mill No. 4 of the Hooven & Allison Company in North Kansas City, Mo., on piece work, being paid by the number of pounds of sisal which he handled. Time went in Wednesday nights. The pay rolls were then made up and the employees were paid on `pay day,' which was the succeeding Saturday, for the work they had done during the week ending the preceding Wednesday."

(3) "Each employee in the plant, including Douglas, had a time card, and there was a time clock in the workroom. When an employee came to work each morning he punched his time card in the clock, which automatically registered on the time card the time he went to work, and then he punched his card into the time clock when he left work in the evening. The time clock registered on the time card the hour and minute that he departed. A new time card for the week was assigned to each employee every Thursday morning."

(4) "The last full week that Isaac A. Douglas worked at the Hooven & Allison Company's plant began Thursday, January 20, 1921, and ended with Wednesday, January 26, 1921. His money for that week was payable and was paid January 29, 1921."

(5) "For the work week beginning Thursday, January 27, 1921, and ending with Wednesday, February 2, 1921, Douglas worked Thursday and Friday (January 27th and 28th). His time card for that week (the week ending February 2d, Exhibit 2) shows from the automatically inserted data thereon that Mr. Douglas came to work Thursday morning, January 27th, and punched his time card in the clock at 6:21 a. m., and that he punched the clock with his time card in the evening at 5:33 o'clock, and that on the next day, Friday, January 28th, he came and went at the same hour."

(6) "Friday, January 28, 1921, was the last day of Mr. Douglas' active work in the Hooven & Allison plant."

(7) "On Thursday and Friday (January 27 and 28) Mr. Douglas handled 18,664 pounds of sisal—this data being kept by his foreman and Pasted on the original time card, which was turned in to the timekeeper. And there was due to him for that work the sum of $11.20, which was payable on the Saturday succeeding the end of the work week; that is, it was payable on Saturday, February 5, 1921."

(8) "On Saturday, January 29, 1921, there was due to Mr. Douglas pay for his work on the full 5½ days for the work week ending Wednesday, January 26, 1921. Mr. Douglas did not come to the plant to get his pay on Saturday, January 29th, but his wife (the plaintiff) on that day sent for his pay with a note by her boy, and the boy brought the money back."

(9) "Some time during the calendar week beginning Monday, January 31, 1921, Mr. Douglas called up on the telephone and told Mr. Orr, the operating manager of the Hooven & Allison plant, that he had been sick and would be back the next Monday (February 7th)."

(10) "During that week beginning January 31, 1921, Mr. Douglas had been seen on the street in North Kansas City by Mr. Stewart at one time and by Mr. West at another time, and appeared normal. And Mr. Douglas told Mr. L. M. West, Saturday night, on the street in North Kansas City that he was coming back to work Monday."

(12) "Mr. Douglas returned to the Hooven & Allison plant Monday morning, February 7, 1921, but he did not go to work. He appeared normal at that time. His foreman, Mr. Stewart, talked with him and told Mr. Douglas that he could not go to work again on piece work, and that if he (Douglas) wanted to work he would have to go to work on a day basis. And Mr Douglas thereupon left the plant and was never seen there after that time."

(13) "Mr. Stewart reported to the manager, Mr. Orr, on February 7th the quitting of Mr. Douglas. And Mr. Douglas' discontinuance slip, sent in February 12th, stating that Douglas had discontinued his employment and insurance as of February 5, 1921."

(14) "On Saturday, February 5, 1921, the pay of $11.20 was payable to Mr. Douglas, and Mrs. Douglas sent her daughter to the plant to get that $11.20, and it was collected that day."

(15) "Douglas got his first prescription from the doctor Sunday, January 30, 1921. He took to his bed February 28, 1921, and died March 10, 1921. The doctor was first at the house February 28th."

(16) "Douglas was up and around practically all of the time from January 28th to February 28th, and went down to North Kansas City on various occasions during that time."

(18) "The court finds that Douglas did no work for Hooven & Allison Company after January 28, 1921, and that on February 7, 1921, Douglas returned to the plant and at that time both the superintendent and foreman of the Hooven & Allison Company refused to permit him to resume work on piece work and offered to let him go to work on a day-pay basis."

"The following facts were stipulated by the parties:

"That on February 12, 1921 (Saturday), Mr. J. F. Orr, the manager at mill No. 4, filled out, signed, and sent in to the home office of the Hooven Company at Xenia his weekly insurance report (Exhibit H). It was a printed form. The report was received in Xenia on February 14, 1921 (Monday). A photograph of said report is inserted in the printed abstract at page 77; it stated that `insurance is to be discontinued on the following employees, who have terminated their services.' Then follow two names under headings as follows:

                 " `Full Name.         Date Last Employed
                Geo. K. Smith,               1/26/21
                I. A. Douglas,               2/5/21.'
                

"At the bottom of this report is printed: 'This report is to be made out on the ending of each pay and mailed to Xenia, Ohio. Give name of every person who terminate their service regardless of length of time employed. If no one leaves the service state so on this report and mail promptly.'

"It was further stipulated that on or about February 15, 1921, the defendant received at its home office in New York from the Hooven & Allison Company an insurance report on a printed form (Exhibit G), dated February, 1921, which stated that, `Insurance is to be discontinued on the following employees who have terminated their insurance' under group policy 320-G. A photograph of this Exhibit G is inserted in the abstract following page 76. It sets out the serial numbers (of certificates) and the names and the dates of the respective terminations of the employment of seventeen employees in various of the employer's mills. The sixteenth entry on this report is: `332. Isaac Douglas 2/6/21.'

"This report was acted on by defendant at its home office on February 17, 1921, by marking, 'such discontinuance of insurance on the life of Isaac A. Douglas as of February 6, 1921,' on its records.

"It was also stipulated by the parties to we case: That the statement for the February, 1921, premium due from the Hooven & Allison Company to defendant under the group policy, "Exhibit E," including the premium on the life of Isaac A. Douglas, was sent out by the defendant to the Hooven & Allison Company on January 26, 1921, and was paid on February 16, 1921. That the statement of premiums for the month of March, 1921, was sent by the defendant to the Hooven & Allison Company on or about February 26, 1921. That on such statement the cancellation of the insurance on the life of Isaac A. Douglas was noted and the Hooven & Allison Company was credited with one-half month's premium for the month of February, 1921, on account of the February...