Illinois Bankers' Life Ass'n of Monmouth, Ill. v. Jackson

• Decision Date: 28 November 1922
• Docket Number: 10922.
• Citation: 211 P. 508,88 Okla. 133,1922 OK 332
• Parties: ILLINOIS BANKERS' LIFE ASS'N OF MONMOUTH, ILL., v. JACKSON ET AL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

211 P. 508

88 Okla. 133, 1922 OK 332

ILLINOIS BANKERS' LIFE ASS'N OF MONMOUTH, ILL., v. JACKSON ET AL.

No. 10922.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

November 28, 1922

Rehearing Denied Jan. 16, 1923.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where a life insurance policy is open to two constructions, one favorable and one unfavorable to the insured, the former will be adopted in order to make effective the primary obligation of the contract. Barnett v. Merchants' Life Ins. Co of Des Moines, Iowa (Okl. Sup.) 208 P. 271.

The provisions of a life insurance policy exempting the insurer from liability under certain conditions will be construed strictly against the insurer. Barnett v. Merchants' Life Ins. Co. of Des Moines, Iowa (Okl. Sup.) 208 P 271.

Where the insured "engaged in military service," and there is a provision in the policy exempting the insurer from liability under a clause in the policy providing, "If the insured engages in military or naval service, this policy is void and the liability of the association shall be limited to the amount paid by the insured hereon," and it is admitted by the defendant insurance company that the insured died, after having been inducted into the army, while stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Tex., receiving military training, as result of the disease of broncho-pneumonia which was contracted by reason of the insured having Spanish influenza, that the disease from which the insured died on the date of his death was prevalent throughout the world and was not contracted by the insured by reason of his engagement in military service, held, that the insurer was not exempted from liability.

Appeal from District Court, Choctaw County; C. E. Dudley, Judge.

Action by William Douglas Jackson and another against the Illinois Bankers' Life Association of Monmouth, Ill. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Everest Vaught & Brewer, of Oklahoma City, for plaintiff in error.

Jordan & Burke, of Hugo, for defendants in error.

KENNAMER J.

William Douglas Jackson and Mary Jane Jackson, plaintiffs, commenced this action in the district court of Choctaw county against the defendant, Illinois Bankers' Life Association of Monmouth, Ill., a corporation, to recover $2,000 alleged to be due on the life insurance policy issued to Norvin Ardis Jackson on the 31st day of May, 1918. The cause was tried to the court on the 2d day of April, 1919, a jury having been waived by the parties to the action. Upon an agreement between the parties it was agreed the pleadings filed, including the petition of the plaintiffs, the answer of the defendant, and the reply of the plaintiffs correctly stated the facts upon which the court should enter judgment in the action. Upon this statement of facts the court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs against the defendant for the amount alleged to have been due on the insurance policy as pleaded by the plaintiffs in their petition.

Motion for a new trial was filed, and by the court overruled, exceptions allowed, and this appeal is prosecuted by the Illinois Bankers' Life Association, defendant, to reverse the judgment of the trial court.

One legal question is presented by this appeal for determination by this court, and that is whether the insurance policy on which the plaintiffs recovered under the admitted facts is void.

It is admitted that the policy of insurance was issued on the 31st day of May, 1918, in consideration of the payment of a premium of $20.50 upon the life of Norvin Ardis Jackson, being policy No. 84475; that William Douglas Jackson and Mary Jane Jackson were named as beneficiaries in the policy. The policy contained the following provision:

"If the insured engages in military or naval service, this policy is void and the liability of the association shall be limited to the amount paid by the insured hereon." This provision of the policy was pleaded as a defense by the defendant insurance company to the action of the plaintiffs. Subsequent to the issuance

...