English v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1938
• Citation: 300 Mass. 482,15 N.E.2d 804
• Parties: MARY ENGLISH v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

300 Mass. 482

15 N.E.2d 804

MARY ENGLISH v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

June 6, 1938

December 13, 1937.

Present: RUGG, C.

J., FIELD, LUMMUS & QUA, JJ.

Insurance, Life group insurance; Disability.

A provision of a policy of group life insurance covering employees of a common employer, that upon "termination of active employment the insurance of any discontinued employee under this policy automatically and immediately terminates," precluded recovery by the beneficiary upon the death of one whose employment had been terminated for three days, regardless of his physical condition at the time of such termination.

Under the provisions of a policy of group insurance covering employees of a common employer, that upon "due proof" that an insured employee had become totally and permanently disabled the insurer would make certain monthly payments, those unpaid at his death to be commuted and paid in a lump sum, there could be no recovery of such lump sum upon his death a few days after he became disabled where there was no such "due proof" at any time.

CONTRACT. Writ in the Superior Court dated February 20, 1929. A verdict for the defendant was ordered by M. Morton, J. The plaintiff alleged exceptions.

F. G. Doherty, (J.

P. McNamara with him,) for the plaintiff.

D. E. Murphy, (W.

A. Ryan with him,) for the defendant.

LUMMUS, J. Judson L. Thomson Manufacturing Company, hereinafter called the Thomson Company, the employer of Edward J. Gallagher, insured his life with the defendant under a so-called group policy in the sum of $1,000. The promise of the defendant was "upon receipt at its home office in the city of New York, of due proof of the death within one year from the date hereof, or within one year from the date of any renewal hereof, of any such employee while insured hereunder, to pay at such home office to the beneficiary as designated by the employee, the amount for which such employee is hereby insured . . . ." The policy was dated January 6, 1925, but was renewed year after year, the last renewal being on January 6, 1928.

The policy provided as follows: -- "The employer agrees to report to the company in writing not later than the 26th day of each calendar month: (a) The names of all persons insured hereunder, not previously reported who shall have ceased to be in its employment since the 26th day of the preceding calendar month, together with the date when each such employee left said employment, and the insurance hereunder as to each such employee shall be discontinued as of that date." Elsewhere in the policy is this provision: "Upon termination of active employment, the insurance of any discontinued employee under this policy automatically and immediately terminates and the company shall be released from any further liability of any kind on account of such person . . . . Re-employment will be classed as new employment in accordance with paragraph 3 hereof and will be subject to the issuance of a new certificate." The certificate issued by the defendant to Gallagher, stating his rights under the policy, provides that

"if death occur while the employee is in the employ of the employer and while said group policy is in force, the amount of insurance in force thereunder on said employee, will be paid to Mary English beneficiary."

There was uncontradicted evidence that on April 11, 1928, Gallagher, who had been coming to work occasionally while under the influence of liquor, was found at work again in that condition, and was sent home. He did not return, and before April 16, 1928, his employer decided to discharge him. His name was dropped from the payroll during the week ending April 14, 1928. On April 16, 1928, the employer sent him a notice by messenger that he had been discharged, and the notice was delivered to him on that day. On May 1, 1928, in accordance with its custom in dealing with the group insurance, the employer reported to the defendant in writing that Gallagher had ceased to be employed on April 14, 1928, because of his discharge.

The plaintiff, who is the beneficiary of Gallagher under the policy, offered to show by the messenger who delivered the letter to Gallagher on April 16, 1928, that Gallagher was then "very sick sweating profusely, barely able to lift his hand to take the letter, and breathing with great difficulty." The plaintiff excepted to the exclusion of this evidence. She contends that it was competent to show that at the time Gallagher was discharged he was then totally and permanently disabled. It...