Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America v. Richardson

• Citation: 129 S.W.2d 1107
• Parties: GUARDIAN LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. RICHARDSON.
• Decision Date: 25 March 1939
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

129 S.W.2d 1107

GUARDIAN LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA v. RICHARDSON.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Middle Section.

March 25, 1939.

Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court June 10, 1939.

Appeal in Error from Circuit Court, Lincoln County; R. W. Smartt, Judge.

Action by C. W. Richardson against the Guardian Life Insurance Company of America for disability benefits under a life insurance policy. From a judgment on a jury's verdict for plaintiff, defendant appeals in error.

Judgment reversed, verdict set aside, and suit dismissed.

Templeton & Stevens, of Fayetteville, for plaintiff in error.

W. B. Lamb, of Fayetteville, for defendant in error.

FAW, Presiding Judge.

This case is here on the appeal in error of The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, defendant below (and hereinafter called defendant), from a judgment for $408.45 and the costs of suit, against it and in favor of C. W. Richardson, plaintiff below (and hereinafter called plaintiff).

Plaintiff sued the defendant in the court of a Justice of the Peace of Lincoln County, and from a judgment rendered by the Justice of the Peace for the plaintiff the defendant appealed to the Circuit Court of Lincoln County, where the case was tried before the court and a jury, and, after the Trial Judge had overruled a motion for peremptory instructions on behalf of the defendant at the close of all the evidence, and had submitted the case to the jury, a verdict was returned by the jury finding the issues in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial filed by the defendant was overruled, and thereupon the Court rendered judgment against the defendant as aforesaid, and the defendant prayed, was granted, and perfected an appeal in the nature of a writ of error to this Court, and has assigned errors here.

Plaintiff's action was brought to recover disability benefits stipulated in a life insurance policy for $3000, issued by defendant insurance company to plaintiff Richardson on November 27, 1917, but which, for some reason not disclosed by the record, was not delivered to the plaintiff until sometime during the year of 1918.

It appears from the bill of exceptions that after the jury was selected, empaneled and sworn, the following proceedings were had:

"The Court: This case comes here on appeal from a justice of the peace court, so the attorneys for each side will state their respective contentions to the jury.

"Whereupon Mr. W. B. Lamb, attorney for the plaintiff read the warrant to the jury and stated that the plaintiff was insured by a certain life insurance policy issued to him on November the 27th, 1917, for three thousand dollars, which policy he exhibited to the jury and read the following provisions:

"`If the Insured before attaining the age of sixty years becomes wholly and permanently disabled, the Company, besides waiving payment of premiums hereunder will pay to the Insured a disability annuity equal to one-tenth of the face amount of this policy subject to the provisions of paragraph 24 thereof.

"`The first premium of Ninety Dollars and Sixty Cents will be payable on delivery hereof and further premiums of like amount (of which $5.34 is for the disability benefits and $3.75 for the double indemnity benefit hereunder) will be payable on the twenty-seventh day of November Nineteen Hundred and Eighteen and every twelve calendar months thereafter during the continuance of this policy until the death of the Insured or as otherwise stated in paragraph 24 hereof' * * *

"`24. Total and Permanent Disability Benefits.

"`Whenever the Company shall receive due proof during the continuance of this policy and before default in payment of premium that the Insured has become wholly and incurably disabled by bodily injury or disease, not due to any cause or condition existing at the time of delivery hereof or to military or naval service in time of war, so that he is and will be presumably thereby permanently and continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit and that such disability has existed continuously for not less than sixty days prior to furnishing such proof — the permanent loss of the sight of both eyes, the loss of both feet above the ankles, the loss of both hands above the wrists, or a similar loss of one hand and one foot, to be regarded as constituting total and permanent disability without prejudice to other causes of disability — then the Company will grant disability benefits as follows:'

"Said attorney stated that it was plaintiff's contention that he had not defaulted in payment of premiums, was totally and permanently disabled as required by the policy, had given due notice and made due claim for disability benefits, which claim (the present annuity payment of $300.00) had before bringing suit been denied by the defendant company, which issued the policy. That the plaintiff in order to preserve his rights under the policy after denial of his claim had paid the premium of $90.60, and that plaintiff therefore contended for said $300.00 benefit with interest and said $90.60 with interest from date, the same being paid under protest.

"Whereupon, Robt. W. Stevens, one of defendant's attorneys, stated to the jury that the defendant insisted it did not owe the plaintiff anything. That no question was made as to the filing of notice and claim, but that the plaintiff was not disabled, or if disabled, that he was not disabled as required by the policy to recover."

It thus appears that the issue for determination below was, whether plaintiff Richardson was totally and permanently disabled, within the policy definition of such disability, and that such disability had existed continuously for not less than sixty days prior to the time he furnished "proof" thereof to the defendant.

Defendant's first assignment of error in this Court is, that there is no evidence to support the verdict; and its second assignment is that, the Trial Court erred in overruling the defendant's motion, made at the close of all the evidence, for a directed verdict in its favor.

In a case of this character, "the burden of proving that the case is within the terms of the policy rests primarily upon the plaintiff." Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Campbell, 18 Tenn. App. 452, 456, 79 S.W.2d 292, 295.

In order to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff in the instant case, there must be material evidence that "the insured has become wholly and incurably disabled"; that he has become thus "disabled by bodily injury or disease"; that he has become thus disabled to such a degree that "he is and will be presumably thereby permanently and continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation whatsoever for remuneration or profit"; that such disability was "not due to any cause or condition existing at the time of delivery" of the policy; and that "such disability has existed for not less than sixty days prior to furnishing" proof thereof to defendant. Patey v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 19 Tenn.App. 634, 93 S.W.2d 1271, and other cases there cited.

It is necessary to ascertain whether there was material evidence from which the jury could find the existence of the foregoing facts essential to a verdict for plaintiff. The case is, in its facts, somewhat out of the ordinary, and, in order to understand and properly evaluate the contentions of the parties, an outline of the life history of the plaintiff is necessary.

Plaintiff is about fifty-one years of age. He was born, and lived until he was twenty-six years of age, in Moore County, Tennessee. He then bought a farm, known as the "Ashby place" (for five thousand dollars), in Lincoln County, Tennessee, and lived there during the years of 1914 and 1915. In 1916 he sold the Ashby place to "Mr. Conger", and was employed in 1916 and 1917 as superintendent of Mr. Conger's farms, which aggregated eleven hundred acres. In the fall of 1917, he bought, and moved to, a farm in Lincoln County containing two hundred and ten acres, known as the "King place", and at that time resigned his position as superintendent for Mr. Conger.

Plaintiff sold the King place in 1918, at a profit of $3650, and, in addition, made several thousand dollars from his crops, live stock and trading while on the King place. In 1918, plaintiff bought the "Sutton farm", near Bellville, in Lincoln County, containing one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty acres, for ten thousand dollars or twelve thousand dollars, and moved to it, and was living on the Sutton farm, with his wife and children, when what he describes as his "nervous breakdown" occurred in 1920 and 1921.

Before passing to the narration of the evidence relating to plaintiff's "nervous breakdown", it may be stated that the undisputed testimony of plaintiff is that, prior to 1920, he was in "perfect health", and he was an extremely active, industrious and successful farmer and trader, not merely as manager and superintendent of his farm, but engaging in all kinds of manual labor incident to the cultivation and operation of a farm; and his testimony in this respect is corroborated by his witnesses Pitts and Loving.

It would be difficult to successfully paraphrase the plaintiff's description of his "breakdown", and we will therefore quote an excerpt from his testimony as follows:

"Q. Mr. Richardson, what is the first thing you remember relative to your breakdown? A. Well, in 1920 I got so I couldn't get around like I used to. I had to depend on the little boys, when I come in from the field at night they would have the feeding and milking done. I would have to lay down and rest before I could go to the house. My wife always had a tub of water ready for me to take a bath. Sometimes I would go to sleep before I could get through with supper and they would have to get me up and get me to bed. I had in a crop and it looked like I couldn't do enough, I just worked all the time, I would do more than two or three men. I had my crop in and...