Hunter v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 09 March 1955 |
Docket Number | No. 96,96 |
Citation | 86 S.E.2d 78,241 N.C. 593 |
Parties | Thomas Dunlap HUNTER v. JEFFERSON STANDARD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Smith, Moore, Smith & Pope, Greensboro, and Harkins, Van Winkle, Walton & Buck, Asheville, for defendant-appellant.
Lee & Lee, Asheville, for plaintiff-appellee.
We deem it unnecessary to consider and discuss all the exceptions and assignments of error set forth in the record since, in our opinion, the question which is determinative of this appeal is as follows: Did the defendant by accepting premiums from the plaintiff covering a period of more than four years, after he became 55 years of age, waive the termination date for discontinuance of liability under the provisions of the total and permanent disability rider attached to his policy?
While there is some conflict in the authorities on this question, the greater weight of authority supports the view laid down in Annotation--Insurance--113 A.L.R. 857 et seq., as follows:
It is also said in 29 Am.Jur., Insurance, section 903, page 690, 'The doctrines of implied waiver and of estoppel, based upon the conduct or action of the insurer, are not available to bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom; and the application of the doctrine in this respect is, therefore, to be distinguished from the waiver of, or estoppel to deny, grounds of forfeiture.'
We likewise find in 45 C.J.S., Insurance, § 674, p. 616,
In the case of McCabe v. Maryland Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577, 183 S.E. 743, 744, a policy of insurance was issued to Jos. T. McCabe on 25th July, 1929, at which time the insured was over 65 years of age. The policy contained the following provision:
The jury found that the defendant had waived the age limitation, but upon appeal to this Court we held otherwise. Stacy C. J., speaking for the Court, said: . .'
The above view is in accord with numerous decisions from other jurisdictions, among them being Pothier v. New Amsterdam Cas. Co., 4 Cir., 192 F.2d 425, 31 A.L.R.2d 295; Bankers Life Co. of Des Moines, Iowa v. Sone, 5 Cir., 86 F.2d 780; Barnett v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 8. Cir., 32 F.2d 479; Kinard v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n, D.C., ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wysong and Miles Co. v. Employers of Wausau
...coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms or risks expressly excluded from its terms. See Hunter v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 593, 595, 86 S.E.2d 78, 80 (1955); Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co., 316 N.C. 461, 466, 343 S.E.2d 174, 177 (1986). This rule pre......
-
Fli-Back Co., Inc. v. Philadelphia Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co.
...that the doctrine of estoppel cannot be used to extend coverage beyond the terms of an insurance policy. Hunter v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 593, 86 S.E.2d 78 (1955); McCabe v. Maryland Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577, 183 S.E. 743 (1936); Currie v. Occidental Life Ins. Co., 17 ......
-
Firemen's Ins. Co. of Wash. D.C. v. Glen-Tree Invs., LLC
...forfeiture provisions to deny coverage. Pearce. 74 N.C. App. at 626, 330 S.E.2d at 13; see, e.g., Hunter v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 241 N.C. 593, 595-97, 86 S.E.2d 78,80-81 (1955); Early v. Farm Bureau Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 29 S.E.2d 558,559-60 (N.C. 1944); Durham v. Cox, 65 N.C. A......
-
U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Country Club of Johnston County, Inc.
...bring within the coverage of a policy risks not covered by its terms, or risks expressly excluded therefrom." Hunter v. Insurance Co., 241 N.C. 593, 595, 86 S.E.2d 78, 80 (1955); Pearce v. American Defender Life Ins. Co., 316 N.C. 461, 466, 343 S.E.2d 174, 177 (1986); Durham v. Cox, 65 N.C.......