Hubert v. National Cas. Co.
Decision Date | 28 July 1958 |
Citation | 154 Me. 94,144 A.2d 119 |
Parties | Robert E. HUBERT v. NATIONAL CASUALTY COMPANY. |
Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Armstrong, Marshall, Melnick & Caron, Biddeford, for plaintiff.
Crowley & Nason, Biddeford, for defendant.
Before WILLIAMSON, C. J., and WEBBER, TAPLEY, SULLIVAN, DUBORD and SIDDALL, JJ.
On exceptions. This is an action brought under R.S.1954, c. 113, § 40 to recover upon an insurance policy defined by statute as a 'policy of accident and sickness insurance.' R.S.1944, c. 56, § 109, enacted P.L.1949, c. 421, now R.S.1954, c. 60, § 116.
The defendant pleaded the general issue with special matter of defense that the action is 'barred by reason that the same was not brought within two years, as provided by the Standard Provisions of said Policy.'
The issue in the case plainly appears from the stipulation of the parties and the ruling by the Justice of the Superior Court who heard the case without a jury and found for the defendant as follows:
The controlling limitation upon bringing the action is found in Section 14 of the insurance policy, which reads:
'No action at law or in equity shall be brought to recover on this policy prior to the expiration of sixty days after proof of loss has been filed in accordance with the requirements of this policy, nor shall such action be brought at all unless brought within two years from the expiration of the time within which proof of loss is required by the policy.'
The 'twenty-one days' phrase in the stipulation was designed to eliminate from the case any question of the time of bringing the action arising from the 20-day period in Section 4 of the policy, reading:
'Written notice of injury or of sickness on which claim may be based must be given to the Company within twenty days after the date of the accident causing such injury or within ten days after the commencement of disability from such sickness.'
From the record it appears: The policy was issued November 28, 1951, for the period ending January 1, 1952, was then renewed in accordance with its terms, and was in effect at the time of the injury to the plaintiff's wife on July 22, 1952. The present action was brought on November 28, 1956.
The statute in force when the policy was issued, when renewed, and until amended in 1953 provided in part as follows:
'Sec. 111.
* * *
* * *
'II. * * * each such policy shall contain in substance the following provisions or, at the option of the insurer, corresponding provisions which in the opinion of the commissioner are more favorable to the policyholder:
* * *
* * *
'14. * * *' (Identical with Sec. 14 of the policy quoted above.) R.S.1944, c. 56, § 109 et seq., enacted P.L.1949, c. 421.
Clause N of the 1949 Act was amended in 1953 to extend the period of bringing action from 2 to 3 years. R.S.1944, c. 56, § 111, subsection II-11, enacted P.L.1953, c. 114, § 111, subsection II, par. A, cl. 11.
Without substantial change the provision now reads:
R.S.1954, c. 60, § 118, subsection II, par. A, cl. 11.
The 2-year limitation in the policy bound the plaintiff. It did not run counter to public policy, but on the contrary was written in the precise words of the standard provision stated in the 1949 statute. 29 Am.Jur., Insurance § 1394; 46 C.J.S. Insurance § 1256; 20 Appleman on Insurance § 11601. The policy, when it became effective on renewal for the period within which the loss occurred, was thus governed by the 1949 statute with the 2-year limitation on bringing actions.
In our view there is nothing in the present statute, first enacted in P.L.1953, c. 114, that compels us to apply the 3-year limitation on actions then provided in the standard...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Mann
...v. Paradis, 1972, Me., 293 A.2d 526, 529; A. E. Borden Co., Inc. v. Wurm, 1966, Me., 222 A.2d 150, 153; Hubert v. National Casualty Company, 1958, 154 Me. 94, 144 A.2d 119. II-C. When the defendant rested his case, his counsel informed the Court '(w)e would at this time renew our motions (m......
-
Sinclair v. Sinclair
...the question of a statute's temporal application without raising this substantive/procedural dichotomy. See Hubert v. National Casualty Co., 144 A.2d 119, 121 (Me.1958) (determining that a statute controlling the statute of limitations provision in insurance contracts was not retroactive); ......
-
Norton v. Home Ins. Co.
...of the effectiveness of a time limitation clause within which suit must be brought on an insurance policy. Hubert v. National Casualty Company, 154 Me. 94, 144 A.2d 119 (1958); Dolbier v. Agricultural Ins. Co., 67 Me. 180 We deny the appeal. The parties have stipulated the factual framework......
- Raymond Estate, In re