Kingsland v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 04 December 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 17933.,17933. |
Citation | 66 S.W.2d 959 |
Parties | EARL W. KINGSLAND, APPELLANT, v. MISSOURI STATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, RESPONDENT. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court of Pettis County. — Hon. Dimmitt Hoffman, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Crawford & Harlan for appellant.
Montgomery, Martin & Montgomery, Allen May and Harold D. Knight for respondent.
This action by Earl W. Kingsland, plaintiff, against Missouri State Life Insurance Company, defendant, is based upon a group insurance policy.
The policy in question was issued to the Missouri Pacific Railroad Company, insuring under its provisions the lives of the employees of said railroad and further provided for insurance coverage designated as, "Total Permanent Disability Benefits."
The plaintiff's petition is a plain and concise statement of facts of his cause of action. The defendant answers by setting up provisions of the policy and an allegation of fact upon which it denies liability.
The fact so set up, being an allegation, that the policy by act of the employer of plaintiff had terminated on October 3, 1931, and that by reason of said termination no liability existed.
Plaintiff in reply admits the allegations in first and second paragraphs of defendant's answer and admits to the third paragraph, with exceptions, that will be more clearly set forth in the opinion.
After pleadings were thus made up, the defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the same was taken up, considered by the court and the issue was resolved by the court in favor of the defendant and judgment rendered for defendant. From this judgment plaintiff has duly appealed.
Under the pleadings, it stands admitted that the policy was issued about October 1, 1927, that it had been terminated by the act of the employer on October 3, 1931, at midnight, that the plaintiff on June 19, 1931, while an employee, received an injury from which he became totally and permanently disabled and that the policy was at that time in full force and effect. It is further admitted that plaintiff at that time had not reached the age of sixty years, that plaintiff's total and permanent disability was directly due to the injury, that the same had existed for a period of six months or more before the filing of this suit and that the plaintiff had submitted to defendant due proof after six months of total and permanent disability.
The solution of the question presented involves an interpretation of the "Total Permanent Disability Benefits" clause set forth in defendant's answer. The said clause is as follows:
(Italics ours.)
The questions presented herein are indicated by our italics above.
As the policy terminated by the act of the employer less than four months after the injury, it follows that no total and permanent disability of six months duration existed at the time the policy was so terminated.
The plaintiff in his reply presents that the policy issued to his employer does not exclusively govern plaintiff's rights, for the alleged reason that the defendant had issued and delivered to plaintiff a certificate of insurance, which was based upon the group insurance provided for in the policy issued to his employee. It is further contended by plaintiff that, by reason of the issuance of the above alleged certificate of insurance to him, the termination of the policy issued to the employer did not affect his rights based upon his injury occurring in June, when the policy secured for his benefit was in full force and effect. If such a certificate of insurance was issued to this plaintiff, then it became the duty to plead thereon. There should have been some allegation as to the terms and conditions of such certificate that changed or altered the conditions of the policy sued on in this case, or better still, if plaintiff had sued on the alleged certificate of insurance, which he says was issued to him. As the matter stands in the pleading, there is nothing shown that gave to the trial court or that gives to this court any opportunity to ascertain whether said certificate gave to the plaintiff any right...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hayes v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.
... ... plaintiff's alleged disability; there can be no recovery ... White v. The Prudential Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 127 ... S.W.2d 98; Gallagher v. Simmons Hardware Co. (Mo ... App.), 214 ... Fidelity & Cas. Co. of New York, 300 Mo ... 279, 253 S.W. 1029; Reid v. Missouri State Life (Mo ... App.), 24 S.W.2d 1086; Prange v. International Life ... Ins. Co., 329 Mo. 651, ... 392, 114 S.W.2d 496; Equitable Life v ... Snipes, 274 Ky. 340, 118 S.W.2d 706; Kingsland v ... Mo. State Life, 66 S.W.2d 959; Schuerman v. General ... American Life (Mo. App.), 106 ... ...
-
Sun Indem. Co. v. Dulaney
... ... the policy on the authority of Metropolitan Cas. Ins. Co ... of N.Y. v. Albritton, 214 Ky. 16, 282 S.W. 187, New ... York ... 969, 113 So. 165; Howard v. Rowan ... (La.App.) 154 So. 382; Ætna Life Ins. Co. v. Walley ... (Miss.) 164 So. 16; Woolverton v. Fidelity & Cas ... States v. Hall, 253 Ky. 450, 69 S.W.2d 977, 978; ... Kingsland v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 228 ... Mo.App. 198, 66 S.W.2d 959, 961 ... ...
-
Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Lamarque
... ... testimony in the case ... On the ... principle of comity, a court in this state will generally ... enforce a contract made in another state, applying thereto ... the laws of the state where the contract was made. Every ... Life Ins. Co., 284 U.S. 489, 52 S.Ct. 230, [180 Miss ... 247] 76 L.Ed. 416; Egan v. New York Life Ins. Co., ... 60 F.2d 268; Kingsland v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 66 ... S.W.2d 959 ... Hewes & ... Goodman, of Biloxi, for appellee ... In ... Murray v ... ...
-
Bellamy v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 230 Mo.App. 312, 91 S.W.2d 81, 87 (Mo.App.K.C.1936); Kingsland v. Missouri State Life Insurance Co., 228 Mo.App. 198, 66 S.W.2d 959, 961 (Mo.App.K.C.1933). It may be inferred from these cases that as to policies ... ...