Gray v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 25692.

• Decision Date: 06 May 1941
• Docket Number: No. 25692.,25692.
• Citation: 150 S.W.2d 563
• Parties: GRAY v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

150 S.W.2d 563

GRAY v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 25692.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 6, 1941.

Rehearing Denied May 20, 1941.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Charles B. Williams, Judge.

"Not to be reported in State Reports."

Action by Gladys Gray, administratrix of the estate of Alice Gray Taylor, deceased, against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to recover on a life insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff, and the defendant appeals.

Judgment reversed.

Fordyce, White, Mayne, Williams & Hartman, and R. E. LaDriere, all of St. Louis (Harry Cole Bates, of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Lee J. Placio, Marcus Sachs, and Tobias Lewin, all of St. Louis, for respondent.

SUTTON, Commissioner.

This is an action on an insurance policy covering the life of Alice Gray Taylor, issued by defendant, a New York corporation, on August 28, 1922. The policy was issued and delivered to the insured in the state of New York upon an application made by her and delivered to defendant in that state. The insured was at that time a resident of New York. By the policy the defendant company agreed to pay to the executor or administrator of the insured upon receipt of proofs of the death of the insured $280, and agreed further to pay an additional sum of $280 upon receipt of proof that the insured's death resulted from bodily injuries sustained solely through external, violent and accidental means, with the further provision that "no accidental death benefit will be paid if the death of the insured is the result of self-destruction, whether sane or insane."

The evidence for plaintiff shows that on April 15, 1937, the insured, who was then living with her brother in the City of St. Louis, committed suicide by taking an overdose of a sedative known as nembutal, while insane.

Defendant paid the ordinary death benefit of $280, but declined to pay the accidental death benefit.

The trial with a jury resulted in a verdict in favor of plaintiff for $324, including interest, and judgment was given accordingly. Defendant appeals.

Defendant assigns error here for the refusal of its instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence.

Defendant puts this assignment on the ground that the policy in suit is a New York contract and that under the New York law the policy provision against the payment of any accidental death benefit if the death of the insured is the result of self-destruction, sane or insane, must be given effect.

Our statute, section 5740, R.S. 1929, Mo.St.Ann. § 5740, p. 4385, provides that in all suits upon policies of insurance on life issued by any company doing business in this state to a citizen of this state, it shall be no defense that the insured committed suicide, unless it shall be shown that the insured contemplated suicide at the time he made his application for the policy, and any stipulation in the policy to the contrary shall be void. Plaintiff relies on this statute to avoid the provision of the policy against liability for the death of the insured resulting from suicide, sane or insane. Plaintiff insists that in the absence of any showing as to the law of New York, it will be presumed that the law of that state is the same as the law of this state. In other words, plaintiff contends that the courts of this state will presume the existence of a statute in New York the same as the statute of this state, though the statute is in derogation of the common law, and that therefore the provision of the policy against liability for death of the insured resulting from suicide, sane or insane, becomes inoperative. We do not think this is so. Rather it would seem that our courts will presume that the general principles of the common law prevail in New York, and will dispose of the case according to the general principles of the common law as expounded in this state. Rositzky v. Rositzky, 329 Mo. 662, 46 S.W. 2d 591; Rashall v. St. Louis, Iron Mountain & Southern Ry. Co., 249 Mo. 509, 155 S.W. 426. However, the point is beside the case here, and need not be decided, for defendant pleaded and put in evidence the law of New York as enunciated in Gans v. Aetna Life Insurance Company, 214 N.Y. 326, 108 N.E. 443, L.R.A.1915F, 703. That was a suit on a life policy, with a provision that the policy should be null and void if the insured should commit suicide, while sane or insane. The court held that this was a rigid and certain agreement from which no doubt or hesitation as to its meaning could spring, and, it being shown that the insured committed suicide, defeated recovery on the policy. The law as thus enunciated is obviously controlling here. Fields v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., Mo.App., 118 S.W.2d 521; Pickett v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., Mo.App., 27 S.W.2d 452; Lukens v. International Life Ins. Co., 269 Mo. 574, 191 S. W. 418; State ex rel. Shoemaker v. Daues, 312 Mo. 62, 278 S.W. 735; Shoemaker v. Central Business Men's Association, 218 Mo.App. 374, 271 S.W. 867.

Plaintiff contends that since Missouri is the place of performance of the contract the law of Missouri is controlling on the question involved here. There is no merit in this contention. The rule...