Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S. v. Brandt
Decision Date | 10 October 1940 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 610. |
Citation | 240 Ala. 260,198 So. 595 |
Parties | EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF THE UNITED STATES v. BRANDT. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1940.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; J. F. Thompson, Judge.
Action on policies of life insurance by Mena Weil Brandt against the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Howze & Brown, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Bradley Baldwin, All & White, of Birmingham, for appellee.
This suit is by appellee, the beneficiary of two policies of life insurance on her husband, who died.
Policy No. 3,632,902.--Count No. 2.
The defendant, appellant, claimed in its pleas and evidence that the policy had lapsed for nonpayment of a quarterly premium due November 20, 1935, and that the surrender value at that time was not sufficient to extend its benefits to the time of his death,--all dependent upon certain quoted provisions of the policy, as follows:
It is alleged that insured had made a policy loan on August 2, 1935, of $1,121.68 which was wholly unpaid on November 20, 1935, when default was made. The anniversary of the policy would be February 20, 1936. He died February 3, 1936, within three months after the default, and after the thirty-one days of grace. There was a gross surrender value on November 20, 1935, of $1,157.50. If interest is computed on the principal of the loan from August 2, 1935, to November 20, 1935, at six per cent., it would be $20.28, making the loan with interest to that date amount to $1,141.96, and if that is deducted from the gross surrender value of $1,157.50, there is left only $15.54, which was sufficient to carry the policy for the amount of its gross sum of $10,000, less $1,141.96 or $8,858.04, from November 20, 1935, to, but not including, January 30, 1936, or four days prior to the death of insured, but not to that date.
Appellee contends first that under the terms of the policy and loan agreement, there should be no interest calculated in this transaction, since none was payable until the anniversary date of the policy, February 20, 1936, and that thereby the amount of the loan should be computed on the basis of its principal without interest as of November 20, 1935, and when so the balance of the surrender value would be sufficient to extend the policy to a date beyond that of the death of insured on February 3, 1936.
Appellee contends next that by virtue of the features of the policy which we have quoted, it was automatically extended for three months, in which option rights must be exercised, and since he died within that time, without exercising that right, his death is within the life of the policy thus extended.
The pleas 8 to 26 allege that the policy is to be interpreted by the laws of New York, to which there is no contention if that law is properly pleaded. Appellant in those pleas undertook to set out the laws of New York in connection with the contentions above noted. Demurrer to them was sustained. The case was then tried upon principles applicable to Alabama contracts of that sort.
Appellant contends that at least some, perhaps all of its pleas, were not subject to the demurrer. Our attention is first directed to the sufficiency of them in the light of the principles which control when an attempt is made to rely on the laws of another state. We will note those principles as we interpret our decisions on the subject.
One of our cases on that subject has been so often cited as to make it a leading case, and if it is understood and carefully followed, there ought not to be confusion on the subject. We refer to Cubbedge et al. v. Napier, 62 Ala. 518 from which we quote as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Battles v. Pierson Chevrolet, Inc.
...v. Ocklawaha River Farms Co., 223 Ala. 690, 138 So. 270; Dawson v. Dawson, 224 Ala. 13, 138 So. 414; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States v. Brandt, 240 Ala. 260, 198 So. 595; Hall v. Proctor, 242 Ala. 636, 7 So.2d 764; Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen Ins. Dept. v. Pemberton, 38 Ala.Ap......
-
Smith v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Clements, 140 U.S ... 226, 233, ... us. * * *" [Italics supplied.] 216 Ala. 438, 113 So ... 315, ... 215 Ala. 603, 112 So. 101; Equitable Life Assurance Soc ... v. Brandt, 240 Ala. 260, 198 So. 595, 134 A.L.R ... ...
-
Schmidt v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
...period expires. There is nothing in the Coons case that tends to make it controlling here. Another case, Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Brandt, Ala.Sup., 198 So. 595, 602, is of no assistance in this case. In that case the policy provisions were the same as in this case, and the insure......
- Southern Ry. Co. v. Melton