Duhaime v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am.

• Decision Date: 30 June 1933
• Citation: 167 A. 269
• Parties: DUHAIME v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.
• Court: New Hampshire Supreme Court

167 A. 269

DUHAIME

v. PRUDENTIAL INS. CO. OF AMERICA.

Supreme Court of New Hampshire. Cheshire.

June 30, 1933.

Transferred from Superior Court, Cheshire County; Burque, Judge.

Assumpsit by Ephriam Duhaime against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. On defendant's exceptions after verdict.

Judgment for defendant.

Assumpsit, to recover certain premiums, paid since August 8, 1930, on a policy of life insurance, and for benefits under said policy. The policy provides for waiver of premiums and payment of a monthly income of $10 per thousand if the insured "shall have become permanently disabled or physically or mentally incapacitated to such an extent that he by reason of such disability or incapacity is rendered wholly and permanently unable to engage in any occupation or perform any work for any kind of compensation of financial value."

The plaintiff began to take medical treatment for hemmorrhoids in the fall of 1928, but did not cease to work on that account until July 31, 1930. On August 8, 1930, he fell and dislocated his right shoulder. From October 18 to December 20, 1930, he worked in a woolen mill at light work while the mill was running on part time. On April 2, 1931, he was operated on for hemorrhoids, since which time he has had no trouble on that account. His right arm has full passive motion, but he cannot move it freely himself. It is somewhat atrophied, and he has not full strength in it, so that he can use it only for light work. Medical witnesses at the trial found some slow improvement taking place in the arm, but no one of them cou'd say how long it would be before the arm fully improved or if it would ever fully improve.

The plaintiff is illiterate, and has always engaged in manual labor. The policy was taken out by him on March 1, 1924, when he was at age 53.

A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the denial of its motion for a nonsuit and to the charge.

Henry C. Arwe, of Keene, for plaintiff.

Thorp & Branch, of Manchester (Frederick W. Branch, of Manchester, orally), for defendant.

WOODBURY, Justice.

The issue presented is whether or not the injuries which the plaintiff has suffered bring him within the terms of the policy so as to entitle him to the benefits which ho claims.

"In construing insurance policies, courts are governed by the same general rules which are applicable to other written contracts. That is to say, it is the duty of the court to adopt that construction of the policy which, in its judgment, shall best correspond with the intention of the parties." Johnson v. Casualty Co., 73 N. H. 259, 261, 60 A. 1009. 1010, 111 Am. St. Rep. 609. Their intention is to be determined by reference to the words which they used in the policy. In doing so an external standard is adopted. "This was language used by the insurer to the insured. The test is not what the insurer intended its words to mean, but what a reasonable person in the position of the insured would have understood them to mean." Watson v. Insurance Co., 83 N. H. 200, 140 A. 169, 170; Cartier v. Casualty Co., 84 N. H. 526, 527, 153 A. 6.

The words "wholly and permanently" are not to be construed literally. Thayer v. Insurance Co., 68 N. H. 577, 41 A. 182. The insured does not have to be in a condition of complete helplessness and utter...