Griesemer v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York

• Decision Date: 26 November 1894
• Docket Number: 1,507.
• Citation: 10 Wash. 202,38 P. 1031
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: GRIESEMER v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

38 P. 1031

10 Wash. 202

GRIESEMER v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK.

No. 1,507.

Supreme Court of Washington

November 26, 1894

Appeal from superior court, Pierce county; T. J. Humes, Judge.

Action by Ella W. Griesemer against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York on a life insurance policy. Judgment was rendered for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Chas. W. Seymour, for appellant.

S. Warburton and Crowley, Sullivan & Groescup, for respondent.

HOYT J.

Plaintiff sought to recover on a policy of insurance issued by the defendant upon the life of her husband. His death was conceded, and it was also conceded that proof of that fact had been made substantially as required by the terms of the policy. Upon the receipt of such proofs payment was refused and the plaintiff, or her agent, notified of the action of the company by a letter, in which, among other things, the following statement appeared: "Claim under policies 204,439 and 468,323, on the life of the late Chester F. Griesemer, has been considered by our committee on mortuary claims. Both of these policies have been forfeited for nonpayment of premium. On policy No. 468,323 but one annual premium has been paid, and the policy has therefore no value. The other policy, No. 204,439, had at the time of its lapse a paid-up value of $1,397, and the committee have authorized the payment of this amount on the surrender of both policies with a full release to the company of all claims under them." The fact of the nonpayment of the premium is conceded by plaintiff, but she relies upon a certain statute of the state of New York to save the policy from forfeiture on account of the default. The part of said statute relied upon is as follows: "No life insurance company doing business in the state of New York shall have power to declare forfeited or lapsed any policy hereafter issued or renewed by reason of nonpayment of any annual premium or interest, or any portion thereof, except as hereinafter provided. Whenever any premium or interest due upon any such policy shall remain unpaid when due, a written or printed notice stating the amount of such premium or interest due on such policy, the place where said premium or interest should be paid, and the person to whom the same is payable, shall be duly addressed and mailed to the person whose life is assured, or the assignee of the policy, if notice of the assignment has been given to the company, at his or her last known post-office address, postage paid by the company, or by an agent of such company or person appointed by it to collect such premium. Such notice shall further state that unless the said premium or interest then due shall be paid to the company or to a duly-appointed agent or other person authorized to collect such premium within thirty days after the mailing of such notice, the said policy and all payments thereon will become forfeited and void. In case the payment demanded by such notice shall be made within the thirty days limited therefor, the same shall be taken to be in full compliance with the requirements of the policy in respect to the payment of said premium or interest, anything therein contained to the contrary notwithstanding; but no such policy shall in any case be forfeited or declared forfeited or lapsed until the expiration of thirty days after the mailing of such notice. Provided, however that a notice stating when the premium will fall due, and that if not paid the policy and all payments thereon will become forfeited and void, served in the manner hereinbefore provided, at least thirty and not more than sixty days prior to the day when the premium is payable, shall have the same effect as the service of the notice hereinbefore provided for." Laws 1877, c. 321. Defendant claims that the policy was forfeited notwithstanding the provisions of this statute, for the reasons: First, that rights under this policy are not affected by it; second, that, if they were the notice thereby required was sent to the assured. The construction of this statute therefore becomes a material question in the case.

It is claimed on the part of the plaintiff that upon its enactment it became attached to the defendant, it being a corporation organized under the laws of New York, and effected a change in its charter; so that every policy thereafter issued by it whether in the state of New York or elsewhere, became subject to its provisions. On the other hand, it is claimed by the defendant that it only affected policies issued to or held by residents of the state of New York; that the evident object of its enactment was to protect such residents; that to give it a broader effect would be to convict the legislature of having discriminated against life insurance companies organized under the laws of the state. We are unable to construe the law in accordance with the contention of either party. The construction contended for by the defendant is too narrow. The language used is that "no life insurance company doing business in the state of New York shall have power to declare forfeited or lapsed any policy. ***" This language, construed in its ordinary sense, seems to preclude such a narrow construction. Besides, if it were warranted by the language, it would not be reasonable to suppose that the legislature intended to so limit the effect of the statute. If it had so intended, it would have made use of language which in some manner confined the rights to be affected by the statute to residents of the state, instead of to companies doing business therein; while the construction contended for by the plaintiff seems to be equally untenable, for the reason that it would convict the legislature of having sought to accomplish something not in its power. So construed, the act would apply to all policies of any company which should do business in the state of New York, wherever issued, regardless of the question as to whether or not it was organized under its...