Dressler v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Company

• Decision Date: 10 February 1921
• Docket Number: 21217
• Citation: 181 N.W. 543,105 Neb. 669
• Parties: MARY J. DRESSLER, APPELLANT, v. COMMONWEALTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

181 N.W. 543

105 Neb. 669

MARY J. DRESSLER, APPELLANT, v. COMMONWEALTH LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLEE

No. 21217

Supreme Court of Nebraska

February 10, 1921

APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: WILLIS G. SEARS JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Wymer Dressler, for appellant.

T. W Blackburn and Clark O'Hanlon, contra.

OPINION

DAY, J.

This action is based upon a policy of insurance upon the life of Samuel H. Dressler, in which the plaintiff is named as beneficiary. The case was tried to the court upon an agreed statement of facts, a jury being waived by the parties. The court found the issues in favor of the defendant and entered a judgment of dismissal.

The record shows that on July 8, 1914, the defendant issued its policy of insurance upon the life of Samuel H. Dressler, in which his mother, the plaintiff herein, was named as beneficiary. At the time the policy was issued, the premium for the first year was paid, but the second premium, due and payable by the terms of the policy on July 8, 1915, was never paid. By the terms of the policy, the payment of the first premium automatically extended the insurance for a period of two months beyond July 8, 1915. The insured came to his death by drowning on July 2, 1916. The ultimate question to be determined is whether the life insurance contract was in force at the time of the death of the insured.

The policy contained a stipulation as follows: "If any premium is not paid when due, this policy, shall be ipso facto null and void and all premiums forfeited to the company, except as herein provided." The exception referred to by the proviso, in so far as it relates to policies upon which but one premium has been paid, relates to the automatic extension of the insurance for a period of two months beyond the expiration of the first year's insurance. This proviso does not aid the plaintiff in any way, for it will be noted that the insured came to his death some months after the period of automatic extension of the policy had elapsed.

While it is undoubtedly the rule in this state that forfeitures are looked upon with ill favor by the court, and that when an insurance contract is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will work a forfeiture and the other will not, the court will incline to adopt the construction which will prevent a forfeiture. Still, it is equally well established that, when there is no uncertainty as to the meaning of an insurance contract, and the same is legal and not against public policy, and when there is no situation presented which would create a waiver of its terms or work an estoppel, it will be enforced as made.

In the case of Haas v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 84 Neb. 682 121 N.W. 996, it was said: "A clause stipulating for the forfeiture of a contract should not be aided or given effect by construction in a case where the plain meaning of the language used does not require it." See, also, Jensen v. Palatine Ins. Co., 81 Neb. 523, 116 N.W. 286.

By plain and unmistakable terms the policy provided that the failure to pay the premium on the day appointed should work a forfeiture. The parties had the right to make such a contract; it is not illegal or against public policy; there is no situation suggested which could be regarded as a waiver of its...