Hablutzel v. Home Life Ins. Co. of New York

• Decision Date: 20 April 1933
• Docket Number: 32329
• Citation: 59 S.W.2d 639,332 Mo. 920
• Parties: George F. Hablutzel v. Home Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

59 S.W.2d 639

332 Mo. 920

George F. Hablutzel v. Home Life Insurance Company of New York, Appellant

No. 32329

Supreme Court of Missouri

April 20, 1933

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of St. Louis; Hon. M Hartmann, Judge.

Affirmed.

Jones Hocker, Sullivan & Gladney for appellant; Benjamin R. C. Low of counsel.

(1) The premiums paid, for which recovery is sought in this suit were voluntary payments and cannot be recovered. Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412; Christenson v. Insurance Co., 160 Mo.App. 486; Pritchard v. People's Bank, 198 Mo.App. 597; Campbell v. Clark, 44 Mo.App. 249; Wilkins v. Bell's Estate, 261 S.W. 758; New York Life v. Fletcher, 117 U.S. 519; Underwriters Co. v. Rife, 237 U.S. 605; Epstein v. Mutual Life, 257 N.Y.S. 772. (2) The plaintiff did not comply with the condition of the disability benefit requiring the furnishing of proof of disability. (a) There was no waiver by defendant of this condition. 27 R. C. L. pp. 904, 905, 909; Holt v. Nat. Life, 263 S.W. 524; Keys v. Knights & Ladies of Security, 174 Mo.App. 671; Leigh v. Springfield Ins. Co., 37 Mo.App. 542; Porter v. German Ins. Co., 62 Mo.App. 520. (b) The statement made by insured's wife to defendant's local cashier when negotiating an extension of time for payment of premium due in June, 1922, that insured was disabled did not constitute the furnishing of proof of disability as required by the policy. O'Reilly v. Guardian Ins. Co., 60 N.Y. 169. (c) The condition was a reasonable and necessary requirement. Parker v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 155 S.E. 617; Courson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 145 A. 530; New England Life Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 116 So. 151. (d) Under the rule in Missouri this requirement was a condition precedent. Insurance Co. v. Kyle, 11 Mo. 275; McCulloch v. Insurance Co., 113 Mo. 606; McFarland v. United States Acc. Co., 124 Mo. 204; Hanna v. Am. Central Ins. Co., 36 Mo.App. 538; Porter v. German Am. Ins. Co., 62 Mo.App. 520; Roseberry v. American Ben. Assn., 142 Mo.App. 552; Hayes v. Continental Casualty Co., 98 Mo.App. 410. (e) The Supreme Court of the United States likewise holds this requirement to be a condition precedent. Bergholm v. Peoria Life, 284 U.S. 489. (f) The following cases are on all fours with this case and a recovery of the premiums paid was denied. Epstein v. Mutual Life, 257 N.Y.S. 772; Perlman v. New York Life, 254 N.Y.S. 646; Walters v. Jefferson Standard, 20 S.W.2d 1038; Parker v. Jefferson Standard, 155 S.E. 617. (g) The courts of other jurisdictions hold this requirement to be a condition precedent. Northwestern Mut. Life v. Dean, 157 S.E. 878, affirmed 165 S.E. 878; O'Reilly v. Guardian Ins. Co., 60 N.Y. 169; Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Milton, 127 S.E. 799; Parker v. Jefferson Standard, 155 S.E. 617; Courson v. New York Life, 145 A. 530; New England Mut. Life v. Reynolds, 116 So. 151; Smith v. Franklin Ins. Co., 202 P. 751; Hall v. Acacia Life, 46 S.W.2d 56; Wolfe v. Mutual Life, 3 Tenn.App. 199; Smith v. Missouri State Life, 7 P.2d 65; Berry v. Lamar Life, 142 So. 445; Egan v. New York Life, 60 F.2d 268; Wright v. A. Life Ins. Co., 164 S.E. 500; Brams v. New York Life, 148 A. 855; Hanson v. Northwestern Life, 229 P. 630; Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co. v. Skye, 240 P. 630; Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co. v. Walker, 260 P. 1109; Jones v. New York Life, 290 P. 333. (h) Marshall v. Minnesota Mutual Life, 29 F.2d 977, distinguished. (i) Repudiation of holding in Marshall case. Bergholm v. Peoria Life, 284 U.S. 489; Orr v. Mutual Life, 57 F.2d 901. (3) The decree is erroneous in requiring the defendant to endorse the policy for a waiver of the payment of further premiums. (4) The money award in the decree is excessive in any event.

Leahy, Saunders & Walther and J. L. London for respondent.

(1) Respondent can recover money paid under a mistake of fact. 3 Couch Cyclopedia of Ins. Law, sec. 729; Hartford Life Ins. Co. v. Douds, 103 Ohio St. 398, 136 N.E. 274, affirmed 274 U.S. 476; Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Brame, 112 Miss. 859, 73 So. 812; McKee v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 28 Mo. 383; Taylor v. Sumner, 4 Mass. 56. (2) Appellant had sufficient notice and proof. Williams v. Atlans Ins. Co., 97 S.E. 91; Jackson v. Life & Annuity Assn., 195 S.W. 535; Bergholm v. Peoria Life, 284 U.S. 489; Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 29 F.2d 977; Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Hazard, 146 S.W. 1107; Merchants Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 256 S.W. 969; State Life Ins. Co. v. Fenn, 269 S.W. 1111; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 273 S.W. 54; Hagman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 282 S.W. 1112; Levan v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 136 S.E. 304; Marti v. Midwest Life Ins. Co., 189 N.W. 388; Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Gardner, 25 S.W.2d 69; 50 C. J. 720; Jarvis v. Northwestern Mut. Relief Assn., 78 N.W. 1089; Insurance Co. v. Rodel, 95 U.S. 232; Bank of Commerce, Admr., v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 160 Tenn. 551, 26 S.W.2d 135, 68 A. L. R. 1380; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Le Fevre, 10 S.W.2d 267; Hogman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 214 Ky. 56, 282 S.W. 1112. (a) The above rule is especially true where the insurance company can show no prejudice. Gunsul v. American Surety Co., 308 Ill. 312, 139 N.E. 620, aff. 225 Ill.App. 76; Maryland Casualty Co. v. Ohio River Gravel Co., 20 F.2d 514, certiorari denied 275 U.S. 570; U.S. Fidelity, etc., Co. v. McNulty Bros. Inc., 13 F.2d 78; People v. Traves, 188 Mich. 345, 154 N.W. 130; 50 C. J. 153, par. 252; 7 Couch, Cyc. of Ins. Law, par. 1507, p. 5385; 7 Couch, Cyc. of Ins. Law, par. 1538-K, p. 5481; Provident L. I. & Investment Co. v. Baum, 29 Ind. 236. (b) The clause requiring proof only fixes the time when payment is to be made, not the time when payment is to start. The insurance company is liable for the full time of the disability. Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Gardner, 233 Ky. 88, 25 S.W.2d 69; Levan v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 138 S.C. 253, 136 S.E. 304; Marti v. Insurance Co., 108 Neb. 845, 189 N.W. 388, 29 A. L. R. 1507; Old Colony Life Ins. Co. v. Julian, 175 Ark. 359, 299 S.W. 366; State Life Ins. Co. v. Fenn, 269 S.W. 1111; Merchants Life Ins. Co. v. Clark, 256 S.W. 969; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 209 Ky. 522, 273 S.W. 54; Mid-Continent Life Ins. Co. v. Hubbard, 32 S.W.2d 701; Corsaut v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 203 Iowa 741, 211 N.W. 222; Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Hazard, 148 Ky. 465, 146 S.W. 1107. (3) The decree is not erroneous. See cases cited under Points 1, 2. (4) Respondent was entitled to recover premiums paid under mistake of fact, together with interest. White Co. v. Betting, 46 Mo.App. 417; Battel v. Carwford, 59 Mo. 215; Handlan-Buck Mfg. Co. v. Stave Electric Co., 169 S.W. 785; R. S. 1929, sec. 1262.

William C. Michaels, Kenneth E. Midgley, Meservey, Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk & Eager, Jourdan & English and R. F. O'Bryen amici curiae.

(1) The conclusions of the trial court and the opinion of the majority of the Court of Appeals are in direct conflict with many decisions of this court and of the courts of appeal, as follows: Prange et al. v. International Life Ins Co., 46 S.W.2d 526; State ex rel. v. Allen, 301 Mo. 631, 254 S.W. 194; Graves v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 279 Mo. 240, 162 S.W. 298; Schwab v. Brotherhood Am. Yeomen, 305 Mo. 148, 264 S.W. 690; St. Louis Ins. Co. v. Kyle, 11 Mo. 278; McCulloch v. Ins. Co., 113 Mo. 606, 21 S.W. 207; McFarland v. U.S. Acc. Co., 124 Mo. 204, 27 S.W. 436; Blanke Bros. Realty Co. v. Am. Surety Co., 297 Mo. 41, 247 S.W. 797; Darby v. Northwestern Life Ins. Co., 293 Mo. 1, 239 S.W. 68, 21 A. L. R. 920; Lewis v. James McMahon & Co., 307 Mo. 567, 271 S.W. 779; American Ins. Co. v. Neiberger, 74 Mo. 173; Noonan v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 21 Mo. 81; Claflin v. McDonough, 33 Mo. 412; Cochrane v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 219 Mo.App. 322, 271 S.W. 1011; Hanna v. American Central Ins. Co., 36 Mo.App. 538; Porter v. German Am. Ins. Co., 62 Mo.App. 520; Roseberry v. Am. Ben. Assn., 142 Mo.App. 552; Hayes v. Cont. Cas. Co., 98 Mo.App. 410, 72 S.W. 135; Christensen v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 160 Mo.App. 486, 141 S.W. 6; Keys v. K. & L. of Sec., 174 Mo.App. 686, 161 S.W. 345; Browning v. Springfield Fire Ins. Co., 8 S.W.2d 941; Hausen v. Citizens Ins. Co., 66 Mo.App. 29; Holt v. Natl. Life Ins. Co., 263 S.W. 524; Pritchard v. People's Bank, 198 Mo.App. 597, 200 S.W. 665; Wilkins v. Bell's Estate, 261 S.W. 927. (2) The disability clause, here involved, is in no sense ambiguous. State ex rel. v. Allen, 301 Mo. 631, 254 S.W. 194; Blanke Bros. Realty Co. v. Am. Surety Co., 297 Mo. 41, 247 S.W. 797; Cochrane v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 219 Mo.App. 322, 271 S.W. 1012; Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 U.S. 489; Gorman v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N. Y., 55 F.2d 6; And the cases cited under Point 3. (3) The furnishing to the company by insured of due proof that he was totally disabled was a condition precedent to the right of insured to claim a waiver of premium payments. Graves v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 279 Mo. 240, 162 S.W. 298; Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 U.S. 489, 52 S.Ct. 230, affirming; Peoria Life Ins. Co. v. Bergholm, 50 F.2d 67; Egan v. New York Life Ins. Co., 60 F.2d 268; Orr v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 57 F.2d 901; Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 29 F.2d 979; Epstein v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 257 N.Y.S. 772, 143 Misc. 587; Perlman v. New York Life Ins. Co., 234 A.D. 359, 254 N.Y.S. 646; Walters v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 159 Tenn. 541, 20 S.W.2d 1038; Mary Wolfe v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N. Y., 3 Tenn.App. 199; Dean v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 43 Ga.App. 67, 157 S.E. 878; Hall v. Acacia Mutual Life Assn., 46 S.W.2d 56; Wick v. Western Union Life Ins. Co., 104 Wash. 129, 175 P. 953; Smith v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 134 Kan. 426, 7 P.2d 65; New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 217...