Jarvis v. Nw. Mut. Relief Ass'n
| Decision Date | 04 April 1899 |
| Citation | 78 N.W. 1089,102 Wis. 546 |
| Parties | JARVIS v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. RELIEF ASS'N. |
| Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Crawford county; George Clementson, Judge.
Action by Daniel T. Jarvis against the Northwestern Mutual Relief Association. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Action on an insurance contract to recover a sum stipulated to be paid to the assured in case of an incurable disability rendering him permanently incapacitated to perform any and all manual labor. Proof of the claim was required to be filed by the assured 60 days before the maturity of the contract. The complaint stated all facts requisite to a recovery, alleging, as the cause of the disability, paralysis. The answer put in issue all allegations as to the incurability of plaintiff's disability. Near the close of the trial the court allowed the complaint to be amended by alleging disease of the heart and of the nervous system as causes of plaintiff's disability in addition to paralysis. Defendant's counsel objected to the amendment on the ground that all claims under the insurance contract not filed in writing within six months after the maturity of the contract, except in case of maturity by limitation, were barred by its terms. As the case was submitted for decision, the only disputed fact was as to whether plaintiff, at the time stated in the complaint and down to the time of the trial, was affected with an incurable malady rendering him totally incapable of performing manual labor. That question was found in plaintiff's favor, and that the disability was caused by paralysis and by disease of the heart and of the nervous system. The conclusion of the law followed, that plaintiff was entitled to judgment, which was rendered accordingly, and from which this appeal was taken.O. B. Thomas and W. S. Manning, for appellant.
Frank E. Parkinson, for respondent.
MARSHALL, J. (after stating the facts).
Appellant's assignments of error requiring notice, though five in number and several of them subdivided, may be properly stated as two: (1) Did the court err in granting the amendment to the complaint, alleging other causes for plaintiff's disability than paralysis; and (2) is the finding of fact, on the subject of permanent disability incapacitating plaintiff from performing any manual labor, contrary to the clear preponderance of the evidence?
The ground of objection to the amendment was that the articles of organization of the company barred all claims for benefits not filed in writing with the secretary of the company within six months after maturity of the certificate other than maturity by limitation. That was also a part of the rules and regulations attached to and made a part of the insurance contract. We fail to see how that affects the question of the propriety of the amendment alleging additional facts in support of a claim seasonably filed. The filing of the claim in writing was admitted. The foundation of the claim was total disability to perform manual labor. The amendment broadened out the alleged cause of the disability. That was all. It was not a new claim, but additional facts in support of the old claim. The material thing was total incapacity to perform manual labor because of an incurable disability. A mistake in the real cause of the disability was by no means fatal to the claim, there being nothing in the insurance contract indicating any such result. The idea of appellant's counsel seems to be that, if the conditions requisite to the maturity of the contract existed and prima facie proof of them was made assigning an adequate cause therefor, a mistake as to the cause was fatal to a recovery. Such a construction of the insurance contract would be exceedingly unreasonable,--would add, we may say, something not found in the language used in the contract by any rational construction of it, and would be contrary to all authority on the question. The contract required due proof of the claim. That gave the assurer, necessarily, authority to require reasonable proof of the existence of the conditions upon which the claim against the company under the contract was based. The term “due proof” did not require any particular form of proof which the assurer might arbitrarily demand, but such a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hablutzel v. Home Life Insurance Co., 32329.
...Ins. Co., 189 N.W. 388; Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Gardner, 25 S.W. (2d) 69; 50 C.J. 720; Jarvis v. Northwestern Mut. Relief Assn., 78 N.W. 1089; Insurance Co. v. Rodel, 95 U.S. 232; Bank of Commerce, Admr., v. Northwestern Nat. Life Ins. Co., 160 Tenn. 551, 26 S.W. (2d) 135, 68 A.L.R......
-
Seitzinger v. Community Health Network
...of construction, courts cannot insert what has been omitted or rewrite a contract made by parties."); Jarvis v. Northwestern Mut. Relief Ass'n, 102 Wis. 546, 549, 78 N.W. 1089 (1899) ("Such a construction of the insurance contract would be exceedingly unreasonable,—would add, we may say, so......
-
Hablutzel v. Home Life Ins. Co. of New York
... ... Ins ... Co., 62 Mo.App. 520; Roseberry v. American Ben ... Assn., 142 Mo.App. 552; Hayes v. Continental ... Casualty Co., 98 Mo.App ... precedent. Northwestern Mut. Life v. Dean, 157 S.E ... 878, affirmed 165 S.E. 878; O'Reilly v ... Co. v ... Gardner, 25 S.W.2d 69; 50 C. J. 720; Jarvis v ... Northwestern Mut. Relief Assn., 78 N.W. 1089; ... Insurance Co ... ...
-
Conlon v. N. Life Ins. Co.
...N.W. 75;McAndrews v. Prudential Ins. Co. [132 Neb. 332, 271 N.W. 857], [109 A.L.R.] 821;Jarvis v. Northwestern Mut. Relief Ass'n (1899) 102 Wis. 546, 78 N.W. 1089 [72 Am.St.Rep. 895].” Then follow excerpts from numerous decisions briefly summarizing the facts held to constitute both suffici......