Kesler v. Commercial Cas. Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 22 January 1929 |
Parties | KESLER v. COMMERCIAL CASUALTY INS. CO. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a policy of insurance, issued on August 10, 1926, provided that, in consideration of a policy fee of $4 and the monthly premium of $4, the company insured the policyholder against death from accidental cause until noon of September 1, 1926 and for such time thereafter as the premium paid by the insured should maintain the policy in force, and also provided that, after two months from date of issue, if the policy should be otherwise maintained in force according to its terms, a grace of ten days would be allowed for the payment of monthly premiums, during which time the insurance would be continued, and where the policy fee and the first premium were paid in advance, and a further monthly premium of $4 was paid on September 4, 1926, and an additional payment on account of premiums, amounting to $12, was made on October 1, 1926, held, each monthly premium including the first, paid for a month's insurance, the premiums paid as stated above kept the policy in force until January 10, 1927, and, with the period of grace added, it would not have expired until January 20, 1927. It follows that the death of the insured from accidental cause on January 13, 1927, occurred while the policy was in effect and the company was liable to the beneficiary for the amount of the policy.
Furthermore even if for the payment of the policy fee and the first monthly premium the policy was good only until September 1, there appears to have been a reinstatement; and, under the provisions of the policy as a reinstated agreement, it was in force at the time of the insured's death; so that, in either view, the petition set forth a cause of action, and it was error to dismiss the same on general demurrer.
Error from City Court of Atlanta; Hugh M. Dorsey, Judge.
Suit by Mrs. Georgia Anna Kesler against the Commercial Casualty Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Bryant & Middlebrooks and E. B. Everett, Jr., all of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Harold Hirsch and Welborn B. Cody, both of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
Mrs. Georgia Anna Kesler brought suit against Commercial Casualty Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff's husband, insuring him against death by accident and naming the plaintiff as the beneficiary. A general demurrer to the petition was sustained by the trial court, and the plaintiff excepted.
The material facts alleged in the petition were as follows: The insured applied for the policy on August 9, 1926, paying in advance $8 to cover the policy fee and the first monthly premium, each amounting to $4. The policy was issued and delivered on August 10, 1926, and contained the following provisions:
In addition to the advance payment of $8 as above referred to, the insured paid, and the company accepted on account of premiums, $4 on September 4 and $12 on October 1, 1926. The insured died from accidental cause on January 13, 1927.
It is seen from the above statement that the entire amount paid by the insured upon premiums was $20. It is the contention of the plaintiff that this amount kept the policy in force for a period of five months from date of issue, or until January 10, 1927, and that with the ten-day period of grace added the policy was good until January 20, 1927, and that, since the insured died prior to that date, the company was liable. On the other hand, it is contended by the defendant that, under the express terms of the contract, the first premium was intended to pay for insurance only until September 1, 1926, and that, after crediting the four subsequent monthly payments and allowing for the period of grace, the policy expired on January 10, 1927, three days prior to the insured's death. It is thus insisted on the part of the insurer that the policy lapsed before the happening of the event insured against, and hence that liability did not attach.
Under the contentions just stated, the sole question for determination would be whether the first premium, called a monthly premium, was intended to keep the policy in force for a full month, or merely for the space between August 10, the date of issue, and September 1 following, amounting to but twenty-one days.
The only provisions of the policy having reference to the amount of the premiums and the period of time to be covered by each respectively are in the recital of the consideration, coupled with whatever words of limitation may follow in that connection, and, in the stipulation as to grace, in which there is reference to "monthly payments." The reasonable intendment of the policy is that for monthly premiums in a certain sum the insured would be protected from month to month for as long as such premiums would maintain the policy in force. A monthly premium is such an amount as will buy insurance for a month, and, if the payment of the first premium was to cover a period of only twenty-one days then it was not a monthly premium, and it would be a misnomer to call it such. The insistence of the defendant is in effect that the first premium, amounting to $4, although termed a monthly premium, was not intended to be such in fact. There is nothing in the policy to show that one of the later premiums, any more than the first, should pay for a month's insurance, and yet the parties evidently did not intend that even as between themselves, and for the purposes only of the particular contract, a month should not be of the usual duration, but should be...
To continue reading
Request your trial