Johnson v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 February 1902 |
| Parties | JOHNSON v. MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Matthews & Thompson, Nathan Matthews, J. W. G. Thompson, and H. R Bygrave, for appellant.
Reginald Foster and Edw. L. Short, for appellee.
This is an action upon a policy of insurance issued by a New York corporation. The contract was made in New Hampshire or New York, it does not matter which. By the policy the application was made a part of the contract, and in the application the applicant warranted that he would not die by his own act within two years. He hanged himself within two years and this fact is relied upon as a defence. The plaintiff seeks to avoid this defence on the ground that a copy of the application was not attached to the policy. The attachment of a copy is not required by the laws of either New Hampshire or New York, but the applicant, although living at the time in New Hampshire was domiciled in Massachusetts and the plaintiff for that reason seeks to bring the case within the requirements of Massachusetts law. St. 1894, c. 522, § 73. By the last proviso of that section 'every policy which contains a reference to the application of the insured either as a part of the policy or as having any bearing thereon, must have attached thereto a correct copy of the application, and unless so attached the same shall not be a part of the policy or received in evidence.' The plaintiff argues that the words 'every policy' mean every policy with which the statute anywhere undertakes to deal, (citing Considine v. Insurance Co., 165 Mass 462, 43 N.E. 201, and Nugent v. Association, 172 Mass. 278, 281, 52 N.E. 440), that the proviso embodies a general purpose of protection to citizens of Massachusetts and that, at least, it should be taken to lay down a rule of evidence for Massachusetts courts in suits upon policies issued to its citizens wherever made, citing Emery v. Burbank, 163 Mass. 326, 39 N.E. 1026, 28 L. R. A. 57, 47 Am. St. Rep. 456. The case was submitted to the superior court upon agreed facts and inferences, judgment was entered for the defendant, and the plaintiff appealed. Of course all warranted inferences are established beyond revison in favor of the defendant. Railroad Co. v. Wilder, 137 Mass. 536, 538.
We all are agreed that the defendant was entitled to judgment, and, notwithstanding the very elaborate argument for the plaintiff, a majority of the court is of opinion that the statute is of narrower meaning. The principal clause in section 73, to which the proviso is attached, concerns 'any claim arising under a policy which has been issued in this commonwealth by any life insurance company.' Prima facie the words 'every policy' in the proviso mean every policy of the kind under consideration in the principal clause, that is, policies issued in that Commonwealth. The prima facie interpretation is confirmed by the next words of the section. These are, 'Each application for such policy shall have printed upon it in bold face type the following words: 'Under the laws of Massachusetts, each applicant for a policy of insurance to be issued hereunder is entitled to be furnished with a copy of the application attached to any policy issued thereon.” It is not to be believed that these words were expected to be printed upon applications for policies outside the state. The same limit is manifest to the final requirement of the section that no life insurance company transacting business under the act shall issue any policy to a resident of this Commonwealth without certain characteristics intended to make the scope of the contract clear.
Primarily the proviso regulates the making or form of the contract, not the mode in which it shall be proved. There is no room for doubt that that is its chief purpose, and that being so there is no ground for extracting from it a rule of procedure broader than the rule of substantive law. It could not be tortured into a general rule of procedure, applicable to all policies wheresoever and by whomsoever issued, if sued upon in this state. Bottomley v. Insurance Co., 170 Mass. 274, 276, 277, 49 N.E. 438. Still more plainly it cannot read as a rule of procedure for all suits here upon policies issued upon Massachusetts lives or to persons domiciled in Massachusetts, or for suits by such persons against corporations doing business in this state. The rule of procedure follows and is measured by the rule of substantive law. The applications which are forbidden to be received in evidence are...
To continue reading
Request your trial