Hayes v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.

• Citation: 150 S.W.2d 1113,235 Mo.App. 1261
• Parties: EDDIE C. HAYES, RESPONDENT, v. THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT
• Decision Date: 07 April 1941
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

150 S.W.2d 1113

235 Mo.App. 1261

EDDIE C. HAYES, RESPONDENT, v. THE EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

April 7, 1941

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Lafayette County.--Hon. Charles Lyons, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

William C. Michaels, Henry I. Eager and Robert E. Coleberd for appellant.

Alexander & Green and Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager & Swanson of Counsel.

(1) The contracting parties were the defendant and the Loose-Wiles Biscuit Company. If these parties cancelled the group policy by mutual consent, no notice to, or consent of, plaintiff was required; all the evidence affirmatively showed such cancellation and the actual surrender of that policy (as well as the cessation of premium payments) long prior to plaintiff's alleged disability; there can be no recovery. White v. The Prudential Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 127 S.W.2d 98; Gallagher v. Simmons Hardware Co. (Mo App.), 214 Mo.App. 111, 258 S.W. 16; Adair v General American Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 124 S.W.2d 657; Boseman v. Conn. General Life Ins. Co., 301 U.S. 196; Thull v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 40 Ohio App. 46, 178 N.E. 850; Magee v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society (N. D.), 244 N.W. 518, 85 A. L R. 1457; Wann v. Met. Life (Tex. App.), 41 S.W.2d 50; Brown v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Mo. App.), 143 S.W.2d 343; Shepard v. Met. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 99 S.W.2d 144; Clardy v. Universal Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 79 S.W.2d 509; Eicks v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York, 300 Mo. 279, 253 S.W. 1029; Reid v. Missouri State Life (Mo. App.), 24 S.W.2d 1086; Prange v. International Life Ins. Co., 329 Mo. 651, 46 S.W.2d 523, 80 A. L. R. 950; Peterson v. Met. Life (Mo. App.), 84 S.W.2d 157; Lacy v. American Central Life (Mo. App.), 115 S.W.2d 193; Hussey v. Ohio National Life (Mo. App.), 119 S.W.2d 455; Peques v. Equitable Life, 57 S.W.2d 705; Douglas v. Met. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 297 S.W. 87; Butler v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States (Mo. App.), 93 S.W.2d 1019; Kloidt v. Met. Life (N.J.), 16 A.2d 274; Duval v. Met. Life (N.H.), 136 A. 400; Leach v. Met. Life, 124 Kan. 584, 261 P. 603; Equitable Life v. Hall (Ky.), 69 S.W.2d 977; Cooper v. Met. Life, 94 S.W.2d 1070; Connecticut General v. Speer, 185 Ark. 615, 48 S.W.2d 553; Davis v. Met. Life, 161 Tenn. 655, 32 S.W.2d 1034; The Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Ferguson, 51 Ga.App. 341, 180 S.E. 503; Johnson v. Met. Life, 184 S.W. 392; Beecey v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Mass.), 166 N.E. 571; Austin v. Met. Life (La.), 142 So. 337; Inter So. Life v. Esenbock, 256 Ky. 640, 76 S.W.2d 902; Carter v. Aetna Life, 272 Ky. 392, 114 S.W.2d 496; Equitable Life v. Snipes, 274 Ky. 340, 118 S.W.2d 706; Kingsland v. Mo. State Life, 66 S.W.2d 959; Schuerman v. General American Life (Mo. App.), 106 S.W.2d 920; Mitchell v. American Mutual Inc. Co. (Mo. App.), 46 S.W.2d 231. (2) Even if plaintiff had insurance coverage under the group policy sued on, which we deny, nevertheless he did not make a submissible case because he failed to furnish defendant proof of his alleged disability "before the expiration of one year from the date of its commencement." Boillot v. Income Guaranty Co. (Mo. App.), 102 S.W.2d 132; Brown v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (Mo. App.), 140 S.W.2d 91; Feinberg v. New York Life (Mo. App.), 127 S.W.2d 82; Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 U.S. 489; Moss v. Met. Life, 230 Mo.App. 70, 84 S.W.2d 395; Anderson v. Met. Life (Mo. App.), 96 S.W.2d 631; Porter v. Equitable Life (Mo. App.), 71 S.W.2d 766; Adams v. Met. Life, 288 Mo.App. 915, 74 S.W.2d 899; Coburn v. Met. Life, 230 Mo.App. 1140, 91 S.W.2d 157; Smith v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident, 231 Mo.App. 694, 104 S.W.2d 752; State ex rel. Order Commercial Travelers v. Shain, 339 Mo. 903, 98 S.W.2d 597; National Paper Box Co. v. Aetna Life, 170 Mo.App. 361, 156 S.W. 740; Myers v. Maryland Cas. Co., 123 Mo.App. 682, 101 S.W. 124; Burgess v. Mercantile Ins. Co., 114 Mo.App. 169, 89 S.W. 568; Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States v. Branham's Admx. (Ky.), 92 S.W.2d 357; Grafe v. Fidelity Mutual Life (Mo. App.), 84 S.W.2d 400; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Falls (Tenn.), 87 S.W.2d 567; Patrick v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Ga. App.), 180 S.E. 141; Propst v. Capitol Mutual Association, 233 Mo.App. 612, 124 S.W.2d 515. (3) The court erred: (a) In permitting Dr. Irwig, plaintiff's witness, to give opinions based on hearsay and on matters not in evidence; and (b) in excluding evidence of certain acts performed by the employer in giving notice to its other employees of the change in insurance plan. Oesterle v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co. (Mo.), 141 S.W.2d 780; Evans v. Mo. P. R. R., 342 Mo. 420, 116 S.W.2d 8; Chavaries v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 110 S.W.2d 791; Phares v. Century Elec. Co. (Mo. App.), 131 S.W.2d 879; Corbett v. Terminal R. R., 336 Mo. 972, 82 S.W.2d 97; Murphy v. St. Joseph Ry., etc., Co. (Mo. App.), 283 S.W. 994; Aronovitz v. Arky (Mo., Div. 1), 219 S.W. 620; Borowski v. Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. (Mo. App.), 229 S.W. 323; Berry v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 343 Mo. 474, 121 S.W.2d 825. (4) Plaintiff's instruction numbered "1" purporting to cover the entire case and authorizing a verdict was erroneous. The giving of this instruction constitutes reversible error. Pollock v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 123 S.W.2d 212; Martin v. Travelers Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 247 S.W. 1024; Finley v. Continental Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 299 S.W. 1107; Toennies v. St. Louis Public Serv. Co. (Mo. App.), 67 S.W.2d 818; Macklin v. Fogel Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 21 S.W.2d 14; Long v. F. W. Woolworth Co. (Mo. App.), 109 S.W.2d 85; Pandjiris v. Oliver Cadillac Co., 339 Mo. 726, 98 S.W.2d 978; John v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 100 S.W.2d 936; Rickey v. New York Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 71 S.W.2d 88; Moss v. Met. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 84 S.W.2d 395; Carroll v. Union Marine Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 249 S.W. 691; Walker v. Bianchi et al. (Mo. App.), 276 S.W. 1044; Bouligny v. Met. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 133 S.W.2d 1094; Griffith v. Delico Meat Products Co. (Mo., Div. 1), 145 S.W.2d 431; Koury v. Home Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 57 S.W.2d 750; Tobin Const. Co. v. Davis et al. (Mo. App.), 81 S.W.2d 474; Jones Store Co. v. Kelly et al. (Mo. App.), 36 S.W.2d 681; Ormsby v. Laclede Farmer's Mutual Fire & Lightning Ins. Co., 98 Mo.App. 371. (5) The court erred in submitting the issue of penalties and attorneys' fees to the jury because there was no evidence that defendant vexatiously refused to pay plaintiff's claim. Camdenton School District v. New York Casualty Co. (Mo.), 104 S.W.2d 319; Grandgenett v. National Protective Insurance Association (Mo. App.), 73 S.W.2d 341; State ex rel. Northwestern Ins. Co. v. Trimble et al. (Mo.), 18 S.W.2d 21; State ex rel. Gott v. Fidelity Deposit Co., 317 Mo. 1078, 298 S.W. 83; Medling v. Abraham Lincoln Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 41 S.W.2d 6; Paetz v. London Guarantee & Accident Co. (Mo. App.), 71 S.W.2d 826; Mack v. Western & So. Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 43 S.W.2d 1108; State ex rel. Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Shain et al. (Mo.), 66 S.W.2d 871; State ex rel. Cont. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen et al., 303 Mo. 608, 262 S.W. 43.

Ike Skelton, Roach & Brenner and Walter A. Raymond for respondent.

(1) The defendant insurer and the employer could not cancel the group policy and cut off the rights of this employee plaintiff without notice to him. Butler v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 93 S.W.2d 1019; Adair v. General American Life Ins. Co., 124 S.W.2d 657, 660; Hinkler v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 61 Ohio App. 140, 22 N.E.2d 451, 452 453; Deese v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 204 N.C. 214, 167 S.E. 797, 798; Sgro v. Stuyvesant Ins. Co., 1 A.2d 554, 556. (a) The group policy here involved is not a term policy. Mutual Reserve Life Ins. Co. 1. Roth, 122 F. 853, 856; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Ferguson, 180 S.E. 503, 507; Franklin v. Northern Life Ins. Co., 104 P.2d 310, 318; Johnson v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., 166 Mo.App. 221, 148 S.W. 626, 630; Murphy v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 199 S.W. 730, 732. (b) The defendant is estopped to deny the first group policy was in force. Voris v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 26 F.Supp. 722, 723, 724, 725, 726. (c) The employer was the agent of the defendant and its application of plaintiff's premiums to an unauthorized policy would constitute no defense. Eisen v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 91 S.W.2d 81, 87; All States Life Ins. Co. v. Tillman, 226 Ala. 245, 146 So. 393; General American Life Ins. Co. v. Gant, 119 S.W.2d 693, 695; Gilbert v. Malan, 231 Mo.App. 469, 100 S.W.2d 606, 612, 613. (2) Defendant waived proof of loss by denying liability on the ground the policy had been cancelled. Columbia Paper Stock Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 104 Mo.App. 157, 78 S.W. 320, 322; Soukop v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., 341 Mo. 614, 108 S.W.2d 86, 92; Propst v. Capital Mut. Ass'n, 233 Mo.App. 612, 124 S.W.2d 515, 522. (3) The court committed no error prejudicial to defendant's rights in (a) permitting Dr. Irwig to express an opinion as to plaintiff's condition, and (b), in excluding evidence of certain alleged acts of the employer in attempting to give notice to the employees of a change in the insurance plan. Baker v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 327 Mo. 986, 39 S.W.2d 525, 544; Hiatt v. Wabash Ry. Co., 334 Mo. 895, 69 S.W.2d 627, 632; John v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 100 S.W.2d 936, 941; Drake v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 333 Mo. 520, 63 S.W. 2d 75, 81; McMenamy's Guardianship, 307 Mo. 98, 270 S.W. 662, 672; ...