Illinois Bankers Life Assur. Co. v. Payne
Decision Date | 14 March 1936 |
Docket Number | No. 11901.,11901. |
Parties | ILLINOIS BANKERS LIFE ASSUR. CO. v. PAYNE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Henderson County; Ben F. Dent, Judge.
Action by Maude A. Payne against the Illinois Bankers Life Assurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
See, also, (Tex.Civ.App.) 62 S.W.(2d) 315.
Ramey, Calhoun & Marsh, of Tyler, for appellant.
Bishop & Holland, of Athens, for appellee.
Mrs. Maude A. Payne, appellee, sued the Illinois Bankers Life Assurance Company, appellant, to recover damages for the alleged wrongful forfeiture by it of a life policy for $2,000 theretofore issued on the life of appellee. Following a general denial appellant pleaded specially that the quarterly premium due October 30, 1930, on the policy was not paid on that date, nor within the 31 days of grace allowed, and that, as authorized by the contract, appellant declared the policy forfeited; and further that appellee had borrowed against the policy and still owed appellant the sum of $822, which was pleaded as an offset in the event of recovery by appellee.
At the conclusion of the evidence, the court directed a verdict for appellee in the following language:
The material questions presented for our consideration are these: (1) Did the evidence justify the assumption that the forfeiture of the policy declared by appellant was unjustified? And if so, (2) did the evidence present a jury question as to the amount of damages?
We think it inferable that the two corporations, the Illinois Bankers Life Association and the Illinois Bankers Life Assurance Company, represented the same interests; that on April 30, 1919, the predecessor company, the Illinois Bankers Life Association, issued its policy for $2,000, insuring the life of appellee, which was in good standing on July 30, 1930, when appellant, having theretofore perfected organization, induced appellee to exchange said policy for the policy in suit, under the terms of which appellee was obligated to pay a quarterly premium of $28.02, on the 30th days of July, October, January, and April, 31 days of grace being allowed.
With reference to the payment of the premium, the policy provides:
In the adjustment resulting from the exchange of the policies, appellee was entitled to a credit of $34.98, left in the hands of appellant available for the payment of the current year's premiums. This is shown by appellant's letter of August 20, 1930, addressed to appellee, as follows:
Thus, it appears that after appropriating $8.74 of the fund as a partial payment of the premium due July 30, 1930, there remained in the hands of appellant, unexpended, the sum of $26.24, which had been allocated, but not yet used, to the payment of premiums to mature October 30, 1930, January 30, and April 30, 1931. The premium due October 30th, under the arrangement above set out, was automatically credited with the sum of $8.74, but the balance on this premium was not paid at that time, and with reference to its payment, appellee's son, who transacted her business, testified that on November 26, 1930, he mailed check payable to appellant for $19.28, balance due on the October premium, the evidence also showing that in due course of mail the check should have reached its destination within 48 hours after being mailed, justifying the belief that the premium was fully paid on or prior to October 30th. But the evidence for appellant would have justified a finding that the check was not received until December 6, 1930, seven days after the maturity of the premium; however, for the sake of the discussion, we will assume that the check was not actually received until December 6, 1930, as contended by appellant. Mr. Lilley, head of the conservation department of appellant, wrote appellee December 9th stating that, as the check was received after the grace period allowed, the policy had lapsed, inclosing with the letter a blank application for reinstatement, and retained the check with the intention of accepting same in payment of balance due on the premium should the policy be reinstated. On November 30, 1930, the expiration of the 31 days' grace allowed, appellant had in its possession, belonging to appellee, $26.24, lacking only $1.78 of being the full amount of the October premium, which, in order to avoid forfeiture, we think, should have been applied on the premium then due. If thus applied, the amount would have paid for insurance for practically the full quarter ending January 30, 1931. We do not think appellant is in position to say that it was not compelled to accept anything less than the full premium, as the arrangement formulated, evidenced by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kirby v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
... ... of America, to recover on a policy of life insurance. From an ... adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals ... P.2d 3; Illinois Bankers Life Assurance Company v. Payne, ... (Tex.) 93 ... 1, 59 ... N.E.2d 524; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Pettid, ... Ariz., 11 P.2d 833; Greenberg v ... ...
-
N.Y. Life Ins. Co. v. Weiss
...Co. v. Palmer, 176 Okl. 514, 56 P.2d 370; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hearne, Tex.Civ.App., 226 S.W. 789; Illinois Bankers Life Assur. Co. v. Payne, Tex.Civ.App., 93 S.W.2d 576; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hanson, 71 N.D. 383, 2 N.W.2d 163; Officer v. New York Life Ins. Co., 73 Colo. 495,......
-
Casey v. Transamerica Life Ins. & Annuity Co.
...Cir. 1957, 248 F.2d 879. Contra, Smith v. Bankers National Life Ins. Co., 1936, 130 Neb. 552, 265 N.W. 546; Illinois Bankers Life Assur. Co. v. Payne, Tex.Civ.App.1936, 93 S.W.2d 576.1 Comment, 33 Notre Dame Lawyer 656 (1958), majority opinion note 3.2 The aviation questionnaire was a full ......
-
National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Johnson
... ... Grand Fraternity v. Nicosia, Tex.Civ.App., 41 S.W.2d 684; Illinois Bankers' Life Assur. Co. v. Payne, Tex.Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 315; Id., ... ...