Hearin v. Standard Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 19 October 1925 |
Citation | 8 F.2d 202 |
Parties | HEARIN v. STANDARD LIFE INS. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Arkansas |
McMillan & McMillan, of Arkadelphia, Ark., and R. E. Wiley, of Little Rock, Ark., for plaintiff.
Carmichael & Hendricks, of Little Rock, Ark., for defendants.
The facts, so far as necessary for the determination of the issues raised by the demurrer to parts of the answer, are:
The plaintiff, in his complaint filed June 15, 1925, seeks to recover on a life policy issued by the Standard Life Insurance Company on May 6, 1924, and at a later day assumed by its codefendant, International Life Insurance Company. It alleges that the policy contained the following provision: "This policy shall be incontestable after one year from its date for the amount due, except for nonpayment of premiums, and except for death while in military or naval service in time of war, which is a risk not assumed by the company under this policy, and except as to provisions and conditions relating to benefits in the event of total and permanent disability and those granting additional insurance specifically against death by accident, which provisions may be attached hereto by rider."
"That at the time of the institution of the action more than one year had elapsed since the policy had been delivered to the assured; that the assured died," but the complaint fails to state the date of his death. From the answer it appears that his death occurred on February 28, 1925, which, on the hearing of the demurrer, was admitted by counsel for plaintiff to be true; that the plaintiff complied with the terms of the policy in all respects as to notice and proof of death, but defendants refused to pay the amounts provided in the policy, denying all liability. It fails to state the date this refusal and denial of liability was made, or the reason for the denial of liability. A copy of the policy is filed with the complaint and made a part thereof.
The answer, so far as material to the demurrer, pleaded that:
Counsel for demurrant rely on two grounds to sustain the demurrer: First, that, as the incontestability clause in the face of the policy does not exempt suicide from liability, the condition as to suicide on the second page of the policy is inoperative; second, if it is operative, it does not constitute a defense, no proceeding to cancel the policy having been instituted within one year from the date of the policy.
I. It will serve no useful purpose to cite the numerous authorities to sustain the following well settled principles of law. It is sufficient to refer to Hawkeye Commercial Men's Association v. Christy (C. C. A.) 294 F. 208, 213, and St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Ruddy, 299 F. 189, decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals for this Circuit, that, policies of insurance must be construed as other contracts and only if a provision is ambiguous will it be construed most favorably to the assured. As held in the Hawkeye Commercial Men's Association Case, supra:
It is equally well settled that in construing a contract or policy of insurance every part of it must be considered, and the contract construed as a whole. Green County v. Quinlan, 211 U. S. 582, 594, 29 S. Ct. 162, 53 L. Ed. 335; United States v. Ansonia Brass, etc., Co., 218 U. S. 452, 467, 31 S. Ct. 49, 54 L. Ed. 1107; Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Kelly, 114 F. 268, 279, 52 C. C. A. 154 (C. C. A. 8th); National Life Insurance Co. v. Gregg, 168 Ark. ___, 269 S. W. 62; 13 C. J. p. 525; 32 C. J. p. 1148.
In the Gregg Case the Supreme Court of Arkansas, in which a similar question was in issue, aptly held:
In Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kelly, supra, the trial court, in 109 F. 56, 57, had held that:
This the Circuit Court of Appeals held to be error, saying:
The facts in that case were stronger against the insurer than those in the instant case, as the condition against liability for suicide was not in the policy, as in the case at bar, but only in the application for the policy, which was made a part of the policy and was a part of the warranties containing other exemptions of liability.
Nor does the fact that the suicide condition is on the back and not on the face of the policy make any difference, as was held in Iowa Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 187 U. S. 335, 23 S. Ct. 126, 47 L. Ed. 204. The facts in that case were:
The policy on the back contained the provision that The insured paid the first premium on March 4, 1899, by a note due six months after date. The policy and a receipt for the premium were delivered to the assured on March 18, 1899. The receipt contained the following: "Read the notice to policy holders on the back of this receipt."
On the back of the receipt was, among other provisions, the following:
The company retained the note, which its agent had sent it. The note was not paid at maturity, but on September 29, 1899, when very sick,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lavender v. Volunteer State Life, Ins. Co
... ... accidental death ... Berry ... v. Lamar Life Ins. Company, 165 Miss. 405, 142 So. 445; ... Sanders v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 4 F.2d ... 555; Dilworth v. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, ... 154 So. 541; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Conway, ... 252 N.Y ... 519, 41 A. L. R. 379; Woodbury v ... New York Life Ins. Co., 129 Misc. 365, 221 N.Y.S. 357, ... 223 A.D. 272, 227 N.Y.S. 699; Hearin v. Standard Life ... Ins. Co. et al., 8 F.2d 202; Mack v. Conn. Gen. Life ... Ins. Co. of Hartford, 12 F.2d 416; Head v. New York Life ... Ins ... ...
-
Wilmington Trust Co. v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.
...of risk of suicide over the incontestable clause. They are: Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kelly, 8 Cir., 114 F. 268; Hearin v. Standard Life Ins. Co., D.C.E.D.Ark., 8 F.2d 202; Mack v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 12 F.2d 416; Wright v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., D.C., E.D.S.C., 25 F.......
-
Prange v. International Life Ins. Co. of St. Louis
... ... v. Bankers Cas. Co., 114 Kan. 865; Parham v. Nat ... Relief Assur. Co., 33 Ga.App. 59; Jefferson Standard ... Life v. Baker (Tex. Civ. App.), 260 S.W. 223. (5) ... "A provision of a contract of insurance which attempts ... to bind the insured to the ... ...
-
Modern Woodmen of America v. Kehoe
... ... This ... case involves the construction of a fraternal life insurance ... policy which provided that 'If his death shall [199 Miss ... established. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v ... Johnson, 254 U.S. 96, 41 S.Ct. 47, 65 L.Ed. 155; ... This is likewise true when ... suicide is expressly excluded. Hearin v. Standard Life ... Ins. Co., D.C., 8 F.2d 202 ... There ... ...