Frank H. Kimball v. New York Life Insurance Co.
Decision Date | 11 October 1924 |
Citation | 126 A. 553,98 Vt. 192 |
Parties | FRANK H. KIMBALL v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY |
Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
November Term, 1923.
ACTION OF CONTRACT on a life insurance policy. Answer: That the policy had lapsed by reason of non-payment of premiums, and that the term of continued insurance to which insured was entitled under policy had elapsed prior to his death and that policy was not then in force. Replication: That defendant having full knowledge for computing term of extended insurance in its possession, had made an indorsement on the policy extending insurance at a reduced amount to a time beyond the date of insured's death and that the policy was then in force; that by such indorsement the defendant made an election as to the term of extended insurance and waived any different right; and that insured and plaintiff having relied on such indorsement, the defendant was estopped from claiming that the indorsement was wrong. Rejoinder: That the terms of the policy contract determined the rights of parties, and denial of estoppel. Trial by jury at the March Term, 1922, Chittenden County, Willcox, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for defendant. The plaintiff excepted. Petition by plaintiff for permission to reargue, in connection with his exceptions, certain points dealt with when case was previously in Supreme Court was filed in Supreme Court at the November Term, 1923. The opinion states the case. Judgment affirmed. Petition dismissed.
Judgment affirmed. Petition dismissed.
Charles H. Darling for plaintiff.
Present WATSON, C. J., POWERS, TAYLOR, SLACK, and BUTLER, JJ.
The action is contract on a life insurance policy. The defendant had a verdict and judgment below, and the case is here on plaintiff's exceptions.
The first question for review is whether the court erred in overruling plaintiff's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The ground of the motion, which is somewhat prolix, is that after this Court held that the defendant was entitled to correct any error it might have made in computing the term of extended insurance, to wit, on August 17, 1920, the plaintiff tendered to the defendant the amount of a loan it had made to the insured and himself on this policy, with interest thereon, which loan and interest then due, the defendant, in making such computation, deducted from the amount otherwise available to purchase extended insurance, and, thereafter, pleaded such tender by way of replication; that the subsequent pleadings of the defendant admitted the making of the tender, but denied the right to make it at that or any other time; and the motion asserts the right, both at law and in equity, to apply such tender in payment of the loan at the time of, and in connection with, any re-computation necessary to ascertain the term of extended insurance.
In considering the question thus presented, certain provisions of the loan agreement and of the policy, and the status of the insured respecting them, must be borne in mind.
The plaintiff is beneficiary under life insurance policy No. 7,017,722 issued by defendant to one Charles B. Kimball, February 5, 1908. The policy provides that:
On November 2, 1910, the defendant loaned to the insured and the plaintiff $ 64.00 under an agreement, the material parts of which are:
The policy provides that the payment of a premium shall not maintain the policy in force beyond the date when the next premium is payable, but that the policy may be reinstated within a specified time, upon certain conditions, and that if reinstated "any loan which exists at the date of default, together with interest in accordance with the loan provisions of this Policy to the date of reinstatement to be, at the option of the Insured on application for such reinstatement, either paid in cash or continued as an indebtedness against this Policy."
The premiums were payable semi-annually, on February 5, and August 5. The premium due August 5, 1912, was not paid. Later, the insured attempted to get the policy reinstated, but all negotiations to that end ceased November 5, 1912, because of his failure to meet other payments then due. See 96 Vt. 19, 116 A. 119. Thereafter, so far as appears, he paid no attention to the policy or to the loan, nor did the plaintiff, until after the insured's death, which occurred January 13, 1916. Thus by the express terms of the policy, it terminated on account of default in payment of premiums; and the loan, under the terms of the loan agreement, became due at the same time. This was a situation which the parties foresaw might arise and undertook, at the outset, to provide for. They agreed that if the loan became due through failure of the insured to pay premiums on the policy it should be "satisfied in the manner provided in said policy. " And the policy provides that, "the owner may elect within three months after any default in payment of premiums, but not later, either, (a) To accept the Cash Surrender Value; or (b) To have insurance for the face amount of this Policy plus any outstanding dividend additions and less any indebtedness to the Company hereon continued in force from the date of default for such term as is hereinafter provided, but without future participation and without the right to loans or Cash Surrender Value; or, (c) To purchase non-participating paid-up insurance payable at the same time and on the same conditions as this Policy." It further provides that the term for which such insurance will be continued under option (b) will be such as the cash surrender value of the policy will purchase at a net single premium, etc., and that if the insured shall not within three months from default, surrender the policy for cash under option (a) or for paid-up insurance under option (c), "the insurance will be continued as provided in option (b)." The cash surrender value is made up of the reserve on the policy and on any dividend additions thereto, at the date of default, computed according to the American Table of Mortality, with interest at the rate of three per centum per annum, less the amount of any indebtedness to the company, and less a surrender charge the amount of which depends upon the length of time the policy had been in force at the time of default.
The insured having failed to elect to take under options (a) or (c), the defendant, on or about August 4, 1913, without previous demand or notice, undertook to ascertain the amount and term, of extended insurance to which he was entitled under option (b). The computation then made showed that he was entitled to have insurance for $ 1,479 continued to May 6, 1916. That fact was indorsed on the policy, which was returned to the insured and retained by him to the time of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fulton v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
... ... 78 MARY C. FULTON, RESPONDENT, v. KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City January 27, ... of estoppel. Kimball v. New York Life Ins. Co., 94 ... Vt. 100, 108 A. 921; Duncan v ... ...
-
Asa Cummings v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co.
... ... court of the real point of it. Kimball v ... Insurance Company , 98 Vt. 192, 207, [101 Vt. 83] 126 ... A. 553; Woodhouse v ... ...
-
Bernard W. Higgins, Admr. v. Charles T. Metzger
... ... Kimball v. New York Life Ins. Co. , 98 Vt ... 192, 207, 126 A ... ...
-
Sarkis Saliba v. New York Central Railroad Co.
... ... Morgan v. Gould, supra ; ... Kimball v. Ins. Co. , 98 Vt. 192, 207, 126 ... A. 553; Higgins, Admr. v ... ...