De Ford v. New York Life Ins. Co.
| Citation | 81 Colo. 518,256 P. 317 |
| Decision Date | 16 May 1927 |
| Docket Number | 11638. |
| Parties | DE FORD v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Colorado Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 6, 1927.
Department 1.
Error to District Court, Weld County; Claude C. Coffin, Judge.
Action by C. H. De Ford, as administrator of the estate of L. D Hale De Ford, deceased, against the New York Life Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error.
Affirmed.
William R. Kelly and Worth Allen, both of Greeley, for plaintiff in error.
Henry McAllister, Jr., and Stephen R. Curtis, both of Denver (Louis H. Cooke, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant in error.
De Ford, administrator of the estate of L. D. Hale De Ford brought suit against the insurance company, defendant in error, for negligent delay in delivering a policy, whereby the insured died before it was delivered and it never became operative.
A demurrer to the complaint was sustained and there was a judgment for defendant, which we reversed (De Ford v. New York Life Insurance Co., 75 Colo. 146, 224 P. 1049) on the ground that, under the allegations of the complaint, the question whether the delay was unreasonable was for the jury. The case has now been tried, a verdict and judgment rendered for the defendant, and the case is brought here for review.
The facts are that the company's agent obtained the deceased's application at Greeley, shortly after midnight, December 11, 1918. It contained the following:
'I agree as follows: (1) That the insurance hereby applied for shall not take effect unless the first premium is paid and the policy is delivered to and received by me during my lifetime and good health, and that, unless otherwise agreed in writing, the policy shall then relate back to and take effect as of the date of this application.'
Soon, probably December 11, p. m., the applicant went to the company's physician at Greeley, and was examined. There was a delay of a day or two in sending the application to the general agency in Denver. It does not appear when the application was received at the Denver office, but probably on Saturday the 14th, too late for transmission to New York on that day, a half holiday. It left the Denver office for New York, the home office, on Monday the 16th. It was received at the latter office on Friday, December 20th, and was accepted on that day. On Saturday the 21st, the policy was written up. Saturday, there, is a half holiday from 1 p. m. On Monday the 23d, it was sent to the defendant's mailing department for mail in regular course to the Denver office and was so mailed at about that time.
The applicant became fatally ill on the 22d and died on the 26th of December, before the policy was received at Denver, and it was returned to the home office.
The duty of defendant was to act with reasonable promptness. De Ford v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., sup...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co. v. Dees
...was dead before the policy was taken out of his mailbox in Seminole on the morning of March 17 at 7:30 a. m. In De Ford v. New York Life Ins. Co., 81 Colo. 518, 256 P. 317, it was held that when the policy must be received by the applicant while in good health, the mere mailing of the polic......
-
Raymond v. National Life Ins. Co.
... ... P. 109; Stone v. Hawkeye, 68 Ia. 737; Ins. Co ... v. Goyne, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1180; and cases cited; ... Martin v. New York Life Co., 40 A. L. R. 406. False ... answers in an application for insurance inserted in ... application by a medical examiner are not binding on ... ...
-
Lincoln Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Martinez
...Until the policy is delivered, the presumption exists that there were negotiations, but no binding contract. DeFord v. New York Life Ins. Co., 81 Colo. 518, 256 P. 317. We quote from Thomas v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 219 La. 1099, 55 So.2d 705, 706, 32 A.L.R.2d 483: 'On the main demand, t......
- Mesa County Co-Op. Ass'n v. McKinney, 11621.