Haas v. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York
Decision Date | 11 June 1909 |
Docket Number | 15,610 |
Citation | 121 N.W. 996,84 Neb. 682 |
Parties | IDA L. HAAS, APPELLANT, v. MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, APPELLEE |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court for Douglas county: LEE S. ESTELLE JUDGE. Reversed.
REVERSED.
Joel W West and Charles S. Elgutter, for appellant.
James McKeen and Montgomery & Hall, contra.
Plaintiff declared on two policies of life insurance for $ 5,500 each, issued by defendant to her husband, Andrew Haas, the first on July 9, 1896, and the second on November 28, 1896, each of said policies being issued upon what was known as the twenty-year distribution life plan. The deceased paid four full years' premiums upon the first of said policies and three full years' premiums upon the second. The annual premium was $ 190.85 on each of said policies. The four annual payments upon the first policy continued it, according to its terms, until July 9, 1900, and the three payments upon the second continued that policy, according to its terms, until November 28, 1899. The assured died May 1, 1902. Plaintiff further alleges ; and under a like allegation alleges that the defendant company had the sum of $ 280.50 under the second policy available as a premium to extend said policy for three years and ten months after the time for which the three annual payments had paid the premium. Plaintiff further alleges as to each of said policies that "on the 7th day of May, 1902, the plaintiff notified said defendant of the death of the said Andrew Haas and demanded payment of the amount due on said policy, and defendant, waiving proof of such death, refused to pay said policy upon the sole and only ground that the said policy had become forfeited and lapsed for the nonpayment of premiums." Plaintiff further alleges that said contracts of insurance contained no provision authorizing a forfeiture thereof for nonpayment of premium; that the failure to pay the premiums when due was a delay of performance of such payment, and that defendant by reason thereof has a lien on the amount of the insurance due plaintiff under said policies to the extent of said unpaid premiums and interest; and that on September 24, 1906, she tendered to defendant all premiums subsequent to those which had been paid by the assured up to the time of his decease, together with legal interest thereon, "which tender, although being refused by the defendant, the plaintiff has at all times and ever since kept good, and has been and is now ready, willing and able to pay, and all the conditions of said policy to be performed and fulfilled on the part of the said Andrew Haas or by this plaintiff have been duly performed and complied with." Both policies of insurance are set out in hoec verba in the petition. To this petition defendant filed a general demurrer, which the district court sustained, and, plaintiff electing to stand upon her petition, judgment was entered dismissing the same and for costs, from which judgment this appeal is prosecuted.
Plaintiff's claim for a reversal of the judgment and recovery upon the policies is based upon two grounds
Defendant contends:
The result of our consideration of plaintiff's first contention above set out renders it unnecessary to consider her second contention, viz., the incontestability clause of the policy. Defendant seeks to avoid the consequences of the absence from their policies of any forfeiture clause, on the ground that In order to sustain this contention of defendant, we would be compelled to hold that a forfeiture of an insurance contract may be created by construction, and need not be provided for by the strict terms of the contract. Such is not the law.
In Perry v. Bankers' Life Ins. Co., 47 A.D. (N.Y.) 567, 62 N.Y.S. 553, the court say: In Carson v. Jersey City Ins. Co., 14 Vroom (N.J.) 300 39 Am. Rep. 584, it is said: In Burleigh v. Gebhard Fire Ins. Co., 90 N.Y. 220, it is said: "Each policy, after a description of the property, contained this statement: 'All contained in their frame storehouse with slate roof, situate, detached at least 100 feet on the east side of Lake Champlain.'" It appeared that there was at the time the policies were issued a small building about 75 feet distant from...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McLeod v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
... ... 496; James v. Casualty ... Co., 113 Mo.App. 630; Shell v. Ins. Co., 60 ... Mo.App. 644; Ins. Co. v. Downs, 90 Ky. 236; Haas ... v. Ins. Co., 84 Neb. 682; 2 Bacon Benefit Soc. (3 Ed.), ... sec. 352; Vance on Ins., p. 501; Richards on Ins. (3 Ed.), ... pp. 496, 497; 4 ... nowise relieved from their influence under section 6949. [See ... Cravens v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 Mo. 583, 607, ... 50 S.W. 519, et seq., 50 S.W. 519; Paschedag v. Met. Life ... Ins. Co., 155 Mo.App. 185, 195, 196, 134 S.W ... ...