Farmer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 July 1935 |
| Parties | WILBURN FARMER, RESPONDENT, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appellant's motion for rehearing overruled September 10 1935.
Appeal from Circuit Court of St. Louis County.--Hon. Julius R Nolte, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with instructions).
Reversed and remanded.
W. A. Brookshire for respondent.
(1) What constitutes total and permanent disability is a question of fact for a jury. 37 C. J. 643; Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Joyce (2 Ed.), Vol. 5, sec. 3031; Mass. Bonding Ins. Co. v. Worthy, 9 S.W.2d 388, l. c. 393; United States v. Martin, 54 F.2d 554; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Lambert, 128 S.W. 750; Katz v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 44 S.W.2d 250; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Noe, 31 S.W.2d 689; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Singletary, 3 P.2d 657; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Blue, 133 So. 707; Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Turner, 39 S.W.2d 216; Bullock v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 158 S.E. 185; Inter-Ocean Casualty v. Brown, 31 S.W.2d 233; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Fannin v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 53 S.W.2d 703; Dawson v. Bankers Life Insurance Co., 247 N.W. 279; Holmes v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. , 60 S.W.2d 557; Maze v. Equitable Life Insurance Co., 246 N.W. 737; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Wyant, 61 S.W.2d 50; Janney v. Scranton Life Ins. Co., 173 A. 819, 315 Pa. 200. (2) The fact that the plaintiff worked a few days after the insurance policy lapsed will not preclude his recovery if in fact he was totally and permanently disabled at the time the policy lapsed. Millis v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 298 P. 739; Wall v. Casualty Ins. Co., 111 Mo.App. 504, l. c. 522-523, 526-527-528; Laupheimer v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 1058; Laupheimer v. North Western Mutual Life Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 1062; Bullock v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 158 S.E. 185; Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Turner, 39 S.W.2d 216; Katz v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 44 S.W.2d 250; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Fannin v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 53 S.W.2d 703; Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Wyant, 61 S.W.2d 50; Kemper v. Police & Firemen's Insurance Asso., 44 S.W.2d 978; Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Asso. v. Bird, 47 S.W.2d 812; Lumbra v. U. S. Supreme Court, 54 S.Ct. 272, l. c. 276; Clarkson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 4 F. Sup. 791, l. c. 793. (3) The appellate courts of Missouri, as well as a great majority of other states, have given liberal interpretations to total and permanent disability provisions in insurance contracts, and have permitted recoveries although the insured was able to do some work if he was in fact in such a physical condition that he could not perform work, for which he was mentally and physically suited, in a substantial manner without endangering his life or health and if such disabilities were of a permanent character. Maze v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 246 N.W. 737; Ursaner v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 262 New York Supplement 462; Medlinsky v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 263 New York Supplement 179; Wall v. Casualty Insurance Co., 111 Mo.App. 504, l. c. 522-523, 526-527-528; James v. Casualty Insurance Co., 113 Mo.App. 622, l. c. 629; McMahon v. The Supreme Council, 54 Mo.App. 468, l. c. 472-473-474; Katz v. Union Central Life Insurance Co., 44 S.W.2d 250; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Carson v. New York Life Insurance Co., 203 N.W. 209; Bullock v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 158 S.E. 185; Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Turner, 39 S.W.2d 216; Laupheimer v. Mass. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 24 S.W.2d 158; Laupheimer v. North Western Mutual Life Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 1062; Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 29 F.2d 977; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Lambert, 128 So. 750; Mass. Bonding Insurance Co. v. Worthy, 9 S.W.2d 388, l. c. 393; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Singletary, 3 P.2d 657; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Blue, 133 So. 707; United States v. Martin, 54 F.2d 544; Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Brown, 31 S.W.2d 233; Fannin v. Equitable Life Insurance Co., 53 S.W.2d 703; Millis v. Continental Life Insurance Co., 298 P. 739; Maresch v. Peoria Life Insurance Co., 299 P. 934; Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Davis, 162 S.E. 429; Manuel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 139 So. 548; Winters Mutual Aid Association v. Reddin, 31 S.W.2d 1103; Great Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 255 S.W.2d 1093; Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. McCreary, 32 S.W.2d 1052; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Spencer, 32 S.W.2d 310; Gresham v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 156 S.E. 878; Adamson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 157 S.E. 104; Green v. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co., 167 S.E. 38; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Tarbutton, 163 S.E. 299; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. McCarthy, 50 F.2d 2; Cody v. John Hancock Insurance Co., 163 S.E. 4; Wilson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 245 N.W. 826; Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Asso. v. Bird, 47 S.W.2d 812; Losnecki v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 161 Atlantic 434; Missouri State Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson, 54 S.W. 407; Foglesong v. Modern Brotherhood, 121 Mo.App. 548; Cole v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170 Atlantic 74; Garden v. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 254 N.W. 287; Jones v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S. 175 S.E. 425; Forman v. New York Life Ins. Co., 255 N.W. 222; Porter v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 71 S.W.2d 766; Austel v. Volunteer Life Ins. Co., 170 S.E. 776; Rickey v. New York State Life Ins. Co., 71 S.W.2d 88; Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cotton, 148 So. 177; Curlee v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 144 So. 686; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Torrance, 141 So. 547; Kane v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 73 S.W.2d 826. (4) Respondent's instruction No. 1 correctly stated the law governing this case. Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101. (5) Respondent's instruction No. 2 is a correct statement of the law and was not erroneously given by the court. Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Aetna Life Ins. Company v. Wells, 72 S.W.2d 33; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Merlock, 69 S.W.2d 12; Prudential Life Insurance Co. v. Harris, 70 S.W.2d 949; Harrison v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 70 S.W.2d 24; Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cotton, 148 So. 177; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Castle, 67 S.W.2d 17; Gresham v. Aetna Ins. Co., 156 S.E. 878. (6) The amount of recovery contained in instruction No. 3 is correctly stated. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U. S. v. Felton, 71 S.W.2d 1049; Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Grabiel, 57 S.W.2d 824; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Gregory, 67 S.W.2d 602; Stahl v. American National Assurance Co., 70 S.W.2d 78; Hablutzel v. Home Life Ins. Co., 58 S.W.2d 639.
Fordyce, White, Mayne & Williams, R, E. LaDriere and Edgar & Banta for appellant.
Leroy A. Lincoln of counsel.
(1) Verdict should have been directed for the defendant and against the plaintiff. (a) Because there was no competent evidence of total and permanent disability while the insurance was in force. (b) Because the evidence showed that plaintiff's disability was curable. Hickman v. Aetna Ins. Co., 164 S.E. 878; Du Rant v. Aetna Ins. Co., 164 S.E. 881; Herwig v. Insurance Co., 234 S.W. 853 (St. Louis); Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Merlock, 69 S.W.2d 12, 253 Ky. 189; Cody v. Hancock, 163 S.E. 4, 111 W.Va. 518, 86 A. L. R. 354; Finklestein v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 273 N.Y.S. 629; Jones v. Equitable Life Ins. Co. (S. C.), 175 S.E. 425; Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Singletary, 71 F.2d 409. (2) The rule that notwithstanding continued work by the plaintiff he should recover if common care and prudence required that he desist, is not applicable. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Torrance (Ala.), 141 So. 547; Cato v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 164 Ga. 392; Blackman v. Travelers Insurance Company (Ga.), 174 S.E. 384; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Wolfe, 52 F.2d 537. (3) Plaintiff's instruction No. 2 should not have been given by the court because it was erroneous and confusing. State ex rel. v. Trimble, 306 Mo., l. c. 309. (4) The verdict is excessive and recovery should not have been permitted for time not contemplated by the policy of insurance. Adams v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Springfield); 74 S.W.2d 899; Hundley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (N. C.), 172 S.E. 361; New York Life Insurance Co. v. Farrell (Ark.), 63 S.E. 520; Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Milton (Ga.), 127 S.E. 798; Atlas Life Ins. Co. v. Wells, 63 S.W.2d 533; Jegglin v. Orr, 29 S.W.2d 721; Bonslett v. New York Life Ins. Co., 190 S.W. 870; Allen v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co., 67 S.W.2d 534; Chipley v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co. (K. C.), 67 S.W.2d 992; Kithcart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Western District, Mo.); 1 F. Sup. 719; Puckett v. National Insurance Association, 134 Mo.App. 501; Leon v. Barnsdall Zinc Co., 274 S.W. 699.
This action was instituted on January 13, 1933, in the Circuit Court of St. Francois County, where, upon the application of defendant, a change of venue was granted to the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Division No. One, where it was tried before the court and a jury on October 17, 1933.
The petition set out that defendant was a foreign corporation duly licensed to do business in Missouri; that for a long...
To continue reading
Request your trial