Flint v. Provident Life & Trust Co. of Philadelphia
| Decision Date | 08 June 1915 |
| Citation | 109 N.E. 248,215 N.Y. 254 |
| Parties | FLINT v. PROVIDENT LIFE & TRUST CO. OF PHILADELPHIA. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
Action by Carrie Mayfred Flint against the Provident Life & Trust Company of Philadelphia. A judgment for the plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Department (157 App. Div. 885,141 N. Y. Supp. 1119), and the defendant appeals. Affirmed.
S. Mallet-Prevost, of New York City, for appellant.
Edgar T. Brackett, of Saratoga Springs, for respondent.
This is an action upon two policies of life insurance, which was tried at Special Term by consent, and resulted in a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, which has been unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division.
The only question which it is necessary to consider upon the appeal is the sufficiency of the notice served upon the insured to effect a forfeiture. The notice read as follows:
‘Please Advise Any Change of Address.
‘The Provident Life and Trust Company of Philadelphia (Pa.)
‘Please return this notice with remittance to William T. Ferris, General Agent, Rooms 414-417 Singer Building, 149 Broadway, corner Liberty Street.
‘New York City, Dec. 14, 1911.
‘Arden A. Flint, 371 Hamilton St., Albany N. Y.: Take notice that the premium noted below will be due on policy No. 103544 on 12 Mo. 30, 1911, if said policy be then in force, and that, if not paid, the policy and all payments thereon will become forfeited and void, except as to the right to a surrender value or paid-up policy which may be provided in said policy or by statute.
+--------------------------------+
¦Premium ¦$38.60¦ ¦
+--------------+------+----------¦
¦Less reduction¦ ¦Addition $¦
+--------------+------+----------¦
¦Amount Due ¦$ ¦ ¦
+--------------------------------+
‘William T. Ferris, General Agent.
‘If the distribution of surplus is used as cash or to reduce premium, sign and return the inclosed receipt.’
Section 92 of the Insurance Law (Laws of 1909, c. 33; Cons. Laws, c. 28), which is entitled ‘No forfeiture of policy without notice,’ provides that no policy of life insurance (with certain exceptions not material here) shall be forfeited or lapsed by reason of the nonpayment when due of any premium, interest, or installment or any portion thereof required by the terms of the policy to be paid within one year from the failure to pay the same, ‘unless a written or printed notice stating the amount of such premium, interest, installment, or portion thereof, due on such policy, the place where it shall be paid, and the person to whom the same is payable, shall have been duly addressed and mailed to the person whose life is insured, or the assignee of the policy,’ within a specified period. The contents of such notice are further prescribed as follows:
‘The notice shall also state that unless such premium, interest, installment or portion thereof, then due, shall be paid to the corporation, or to the duly appointed agent or person authorized to collect such premium by or before the day it falls due, the policy and all payments thereon will become forfeited and void except as to the right to a surrender value or paid-up policy as in this chapter provided.’
The notice in the present case is defective because it fails to state that the policy will become forfeited if payment of the premium is not made ‘by or before the day it falls due.’ It does tell when the premium is due; it also says that if the premium is not paid the policy and all payments thereon will become forfeited and void; but it does not declare that these consequences will ensue if the preimum be not then paid or be not paid ‘by or before’ that day. In other words, the notice does not negative the possibility that a forfeiture may be avoided by paying the premium after the day when it falls due. The notice prescribed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCormack v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...that it had a reasonable range of choice. McDougall v. Provident S. L. A. Socy., 135 N. Y. 551, 556,32 N. E. 251;Flint v. Provident L. & T. Co., 215 N. Y. 254, 258,109 N. E. 248. The choice which it made involves no sacrifice of substance. There is a suggestion, however, of still another de......
-
Maloney v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co.
...paid only to November 1953. But this letter fell short of compliance with the statutory requirements.3 Flint v. Provident Life & Trust Co. of Philadelphia, 215 N.Y. 254, 109 N. E. 248; McDonald v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 182 App.Div. 482, 169 N.Y.S. 762. Similarly, of little assistance to the ......