Hyfer v. Netropolitan Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1945 |
| Citation | 61 N.E.2d 3,318 Mass. 175 |
| Parties | HYFER v. NETROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Report from Superior Court, Suffolk County; L. Goldberg, Judge.
Action of contract on a life insurance policy by Ida Hyfer against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. On report without decision.
Judgment for plaintiff in the amount of the reserve value of the policy.
Before FIELD, C. J., and LUMMUS, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.
L. M. Friedman, of Boston, for plaintiff.
R. C. Evarts, of Boston, for defendant.
B. Aldrich, of Boston, amicus curiae.
This action of contract by the beneficiary of a life insurance policy is reported without decision upon a case stated. G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 111. On December 26, 1940, Irving Hyfer, a resident of Chelsea, applied to the defendant in New York for ‘a $10,000 Whole Life’ policy of insurance, the beneficiary of which was his mother, with whom he lived. The application contained the following: ‘The Company shall incur no liability under this application until it has been received, approved, and a policy issued and delivered, and the full first premium specified in the policy has actually been paid to and accepted by the Company.'1 The application was approved, and a policy ‘bearing effective date of January 2, 1941, * * * was issued in New York [at the home office] and forwarded to the district office’ of the defendant in Everett. The policy was delivered to the insured in Chelsea on or about January 13, and the first premium was paid ‘on delivery.’ The contract was made in Massachusetts. Thwing v. Great Western Ins. Co., 111 Mass. 93, 109;Dolan v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 173 Mass. 197, 199, 53 N.E. 398;Davis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 212 Mass. 310, 312, 98 N.E. 1043, 41 L.R.A.,N.S., 250; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Clements, 140 U.S. 226, 232, 11 S.Ct. 822, 35 L.Ed. 497; Beale, Conflict of Laws, §§ 311.1, 318.1. Am.Law Inst. Restatement: Conflict of Laws, § 318, comment a. Its interpretation is to be governed by the law of this State. Millard v. Brayton, 177 Mass. 533, 537, 59 N.E. 436,52 L.R.A. 117, 83 Am.St.Rep. 294;Wilde v. Wilde, 209 Mass. 205, 207, 95 N.E. 295; Beale, Conflict of Laws, §§ 346.4, 332.29. Am.Law Inst. Restatement: Conflict of Laws, §§ 332(f); 346, comment a; 358, comment a. This is true notwithstanding that the policy provided that certain acts were to be performed at the home office, such as the payment of the principal amount at maturity ( Wilde v. Wilde, supra, 209 Mass. 207, 95 N.E. 295), the filing of notice of change of beneficiary, assignment, or the exercise of rights upon surrender or lapse (Beale, Conflict of Laws, § 317.2). We do not think that the limitation of the general rule stated in Clark v. State Street Trust Co., 270 Mass. 140, 150, 169 N.E. 897, is applicable. While the plaintiff contends that New York law governs the construction of the policy, we see no reason to believe that a different result should be reached under New York law.
There was no clause in the policy excluding death due to war risks, but there was a ‘special provision as to aeronautics': ‘Death as a result, directly or indirectly, of travel or flight in any species of air craft, except as a fare-paying passenger on a licensed air craft piloted by a licensed passenger pilot on a scheduled passenger air service regularly offered between specified airports, is a risk not assumed under this Policy; but, if the Insured shall die as a result, directly or indirectly, of such travel or flight, the Company will pay to the beneficiary the reserve on this Policy, less any indebtedness thereon.’
The insured enlisted in the army, and was assigned to the air corps, in which he held the rank of private. His principal duty, ordered by competent authority, was a radio operator on an official army transport plane, which did not carry an ‘NC license,’ but bore an army serial number. The pilot was licensed for both army and civilian aircraft. On October 1, 1942, while ‘on a scheduled flight’ in Porto Rico, where he apparently was stationed, the insured and the entire crew were killed by crashing into a hilltop obscured by clouds.
The main question is the effect of the aeronautical clause. If it applies, there can be no recovery of the face amount of the policy, as the insured was not ‘a fare-paying passenger on a licensed air craft * * * on a scheduled passenger air service regularly offered between specified airports.’ One reason urged by the plaintiff why it should not apply is that, since there was no general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Boyle v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co.
...its terms.” Cody v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 387 Mass. 142, 146, 439 N.E.2d 234 (1982), quoting Hyfer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 318 Mass. 175, 179, 61 N.E.2d 3 (1945).11 Under this analytical framework, the court concluded that a genuine dispute remained as to whether the insure......
-
M. Dematteo Const. Co. v. Century Indem. Co.
...are plainly and definitely expressed in appropriate language must be enforced in accordance with its terms." Hyfer v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 318 Mass. 175, 179, 61 N.E.2d 3 (1945) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Stankus v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 312 Mass. 366, 369, 44 N.E.2d 687 (19......
-
A & W Maint., Inc. v. First Mercury Ins. Co.
...plainly and definitely expressed in appropriate language must be enforced in accordance with its terms.” Hyfer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 318 Mass. 175, 179, 61 N.E.2d 3 (1945) (quoting Stankus v. New York Life Ins. Co., 312 Mass. 366, 369, 44 N.E.2d 687 (1942) )(internal quotation mark......
-
Burns v. Mutual Ben. Life Ins. Co., 251.
...Life Ins. Co., 186 Misc. 580, 61 N.Y.S.2d 700; Knouse v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 163 Kan. 213, 181 P.2d 310; Hyfer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 318 Mass. 175, 61 N.E.2d 3; McBride v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 147 Ohio St. 461, 72 N.E.2d 98; Thoma v. New York Life Insurance Co., 30 ......