Eminent Household of Columbia Woodmen v. Ramsey

• Decision Date: 24 June 1918
• Docket Number: 20268
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: EMINENT HOUSEHOLD OF COLUMBIA WOODMEN v. RAMSEY

79 So. 351

118 Miss. 454

EMINENT HOUSEHOLD OF COLUMBIA WOODMEN v. RAMSEY

No. 20268

Supreme Court of Mississippi

June 24, 1918

Division A

APPEAL from the circuit court of Copiah county, HON. D. M. MILLER Judge.

Suit by Mrs. J. W. Ramsey against the Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Affirmed.

G. L Teat and J. A. Teat, for appellant.

W. Calvin Wells and M. S. McNeil, for appellee.

OPINION

SYKES, J.

The appellee, Mrs. J. W. Ramsey, plaintiff in the circuit court, instituted suit against appellant for recovery of three thousand dollars upon a life insurance policy insuring the life of her husband, J. W. Ramsey, in which policy she was the beneficiary, and from a verdict and judgment in favor of Mrs. Ramsey this appeal is prosecuted.

The material facts necessary to an understanding of this opinion are as follows:

In the year 1910 Dr. Ramsey, a practicing physician of Crystal Springs, made written application to the appellant insurance company for a policy of life insurance for three thousand dollars. In this written application appear the following stipulations:

"I certify and warrant that I am, in sound bodily and mental health, that I am temperate and have no habit, injury, nor disease that will tend to impair my health or shorten my life.

"I have read the above answers, and declare and warrant them to be true, full, and complete, and agree that they shall be the basis of any covenant that may be issued to me. I waive for myself and beneficiaries the privilege of any and all laws tending to disqualify any physician from testifying to information obtained in professional capacity."

During the year of 1916 Dr. Ramsey became delinquent in the payment of his monthly dues or premiums on this policy, and it was necessary that he make a written application for reinstatement. In this application for reinstatement appear the following averments:

"As a condition of same being accepted and my covenant again being put in force, I hereby warrant and declare: . . .

"(3) To what extent do you use narcotics and spirituous liquors?

"(3) Ans. Not any. . . .

"I further warrant and declare that I am to the best of my knowledge and belief in sound health and free from any and all symptoms of disease, and that there is now no condition of my person, residence, or occupation tending to impair my health, injure my constitution, or shorten my life; all of which statements I admit to be material, and warrant to be full and true as a basis of such reinstatement.

"I agree that this application for reinstatement if accepted shall become and form a part of my original application and covenant. . . ."

Dr. Ramsey was duly reinstated, and a new insurance policy issued to him by appellant company. This policy contains these material statements:

"In consideration of the application for membership and the agreements, statements, and warranties therein contained, the medical examination, and the constitution and by-laws, as they now exist or may be legally amended, all of which are expressly made a part of the agreement effected by this covenant, the Eminent Household of Columbian Woodmen has issued this covenant to Worthy Guest John Womack Ramsey. . . ."

Under the heading "Special Benefits and Conditions" is this statement:

"(10) This covenant shall not be contested except for misrepresentation in the application or in health statement, provided this guest has complied with the conditions of the constitution and of this covenant."

From the above quotations from the application and covenant it will be seen that these applications, constitution, and by-laws of the order are all made a part of the contract of insurance. The application for reinstatement is also according to its written provisions made a part of the original application.

In the constitution and laws of the appellant company, on page 21, paragraph 10, it is provided that a member may be expelled "for intemperance, use of narcotics," or "for making false representations in his application" for insurance; on page 38, section 12, under the heading "noncontestable":

"No covenant issued shall be contested except for misrepresentation in the application, or in health statements, provided all conditions of the covenant and the constitution and laws of the order shall have been faithfully complied with."

On page 41, under the heading, "Forfeiture," it is provided:

That "the covenant of insurance shall be void and of no effect" whenever a guest becomes "intemperate in the use of liquor, or uses opiates, cocaine, chloral, or other narcotics or poison, to such an extent as to impair his health, . . . or if representations in the application upon the faith of which the covenant was issued shall be found untrue."

On page 45, under the heading "Reinstatement," in paragraph 1, it is provided that any suspended guest for nonpayment of dues who is in good health and not addicted to the excessive use of intoxicants or narcotics may be restored to membership.

Paragraph 2, page 46, provides for the payment of his dues, and that he shall deliver to the worthy secretary a written statement and warranty certified by the secretary that he is in good health and not addicted to excessive use of intoxicants or narcotics, as a condition precedent to reinstatement.

The defendant in the lower court filed a special plea stating that under certain paragraphs of the constitution referred to in this opinion the insured had been suspended, and in his application for reinstatement, in reply to the question, "To what extent do you use narcotics and spirituous liquors?" he answered, "Not any," "well knowing at the time said answer to be untrue and misleading, and that he, the said J. W. Ramsey, did use narcotics, to wit, chloral, and had so used said narcotic from time to time prior thereto as a remedy for epilepsy," that this was a false warranty in the application for reinstatement, and that the insurance contract for this reason is void. A demurrer was interposed and by the court sustained to this plea.

Another special plea was filed by defendant alleging that under the provisions of the by-laws and constitution of the order (which provision is as follows):

"No guest of this society and no beneficiary under any covenant issued thereby shall resort to the courts or institute legal proceedings of any kind for the assertion or adjudication of any rights claimed, either as guest or beneficiary, until the matter in controversy shall have been first submitted to the order for decision."

This section 2 provides, briefly, that a beneficiary shall submit her claim to the order, and if it is declined she has a right to appeal from that decision to the executive committee, and from their decision to the eminent council, and from their decision to the Eminent Household. It is only after a decision of the Eminent Household that she has a right to bring legal proceedings under this section. Her replication was filed to this plea in which it was denied that the plaintiff did not have a right to bring this suit before exhausting all of her remedies by appeal in the order as above set out.

The testimony in the case showed that the insured, Dr. J. W. Ramsey, previous to and at the time of the application for reinstatement, at irregular times, suffered from spells of unconsciousness, or fainting spells, varying in length from a few seconds to a few minutes. Sometimes he would have these spells with an interval of several days apart, and again several months would elapse between them. On some occasions, while standing on the street, he would fall down and have to be carried to his office. At other times these spells were very light, and it is doubtful whether or not he lost consciousness. He would recover within a few minutes and apparently be all right. One or two physicians testified in the case that they had seen him in one or two of these spells, and that it was a mild form of epilepsy, termed by one of them "petit mal."

The testimony shows that Dr. Ramsey was a very active practitioner of medicine...