Kirby v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America

• Decision Date: 05 November 1945
• Docket Number: 20586.
• Citation: 191 S.W.2d 379,239 Mo.App. 476
• Parties: Violet G. Kirby, v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

191 S.W.2d 379

239 Mo.App. 476

Violet G. Kirby, v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

No. 20586.

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

November 5, 1945

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Jackson County; Hon. Ben Terte Judge.

Action by Violet G. Kirby against the Prudential Insurance Company of America, to recover on a policy of life insurance. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals

Affirmed.

Herbert Jacob, Phineas Rosenberg and Henderson, Henderson & Swofford for appellant.

(1) The trial court erred in refusing to find and conclude that the term "Insurability" meant insured's good health and an insurable interest in the insured, and that Respondent was obligated to reinstate the policy as originally issued. Chambers v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 236 Mo.App. 884, 138 S.W.2d 29; Missouri State Life Insurance Company v. Hearne, (Tex.) 226 S.W. 789; Soukop v Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited, of London, England, 341 Mo. 614, 108 S.W.2d 86, 112 A. L R. 149; Cleaver v. Central States Life Insurance Company, 346 Mo. 548, 142 S.W.2d 474; Sussex v. Aetna Life Assurance Company, 33 D. L. R. 549, 38 O. L. R. 365; Farmer v. Railway Mail Association, 227 Mo.App. 1082, 57 S.W.2d 744; Heald v. Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, 340 Mo. 143, 104 S.W.2d 379; Robinson v. Commonwealth Casualty Company, 224 Mo.App. 969, 27 S.W.2d 49; Wichman v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 120 Mo.App. 51, 96 S.W. 695; Couch, Cyc. of Ins. Law, p: 4939; Kennedy v. Occidental Life Insurance Company, 18 Cal.2d 627, 117 P.2d 3; Illinois Bankers Life Assurance Company v. Payne, (Tex.) 93 S.W.2d 576; New York Life Insurance Company v. Weiss, 133 N.J.Eq. 375, 32 A.2d 341; Illinois Bankers Life Insurance Association of Monmouth v. Palmer, 176 Okla. 514, 56 P.2d 370; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Mason, (Mass.) 16 N.E.2d 69; Stamey v. U.S., 42 F.2d 879; Lovick v. Provident Life Association, 110 N.C. 93, 14 S.E. 506; Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association v. Kennedy, 140 F.2d 24; Smith v. Bankers National Ins. Co., 130 Neb. 552 265 N.W. 546. (2) The trial court erred in refusing to find and conclude that the policy provisions regarding reinstatement and the term "Insurability" were ambiguous and susceptible of two constructions, and that such ambiguity should be resolved in favor of Appellant. Robinson v. Casualty Commonwealth Company, 224 Mo.App. 969, 27 S.W.2d 49; Block v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company, 316 Mo. 278, 290 S.W. 429; Stalion v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 232 Mo.App. 467, 119 S.W.2d 30; State ex rel. Ocean Accident and Guarantee Corporation, Limited, v. Hostetter, 341 Mo. 488, 108 S.W.2d 17; Kempf v. The Equitable Life Insurance Society of the United States, 184 S.W. 133; Henderson v. Massachusetts Bonding and Insurance Company, 337 Mo. 1, 184 S.W.2d 922; Cleaver v. Central States Life Insurance Company, 346 Mo. 548, 142 S.W.2d 474, 129 A. L. R. 1094; Soukop v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, 341 Mo. 614, 108 S.W.2d 86, 112 A. L. R. 149; Spencer v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company of Sullivan County, 65 S.W.2d 665; Salamone v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 103 S.W.2d 506; Howell v. Security Mutual Life Insurance Company, 215 Mo.App. 692, 253 S.W. 411; Rodefer v. Grange Mutual Life Insurance Company of Lewis County, 91 S.W.2d 112; Wall v. Commonwealth Casualty Company of Philadelphia, 225 Mo.App. 657, 39 S.W.2d 441; Bank of Conception v. American Bonding Company, 230 Mo.App. 54, 89 S.W.2d 554; State ex rel. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Allen, 337 Mo. 525, 85 S.W.2d 469; Kimbrough v. National Protective Insurance Ass'n., 225 Mo.App. 913, 35 S.W.2d 654; State ex rel. Mills Lumber Company v. Trimble, 327 Mo. 899, 39 S.W.2d 471. (3) The trial court erred in refusing to find and conclude that Respondent's refusal to reinstate the policy was arbitrary and capricious under the facts and circumstances. Thompson v. Postal Life Insurance Company, 226 N.Y. 363, 123 N.E. 750; Lane et al. v. New York Life Insurance Company, 147 S.C. 333, 145 S.E. 196; Haselden v. Standard Mutual Life Association, 190 S.C. 1, 1 S.E.2d 924; Illinois Bankers Life Insurance Company of Monmouth v. Palmer, 176 Okla. 514, 56 P.2d 370; Kennedy v. Occidental Life Insurance Company, 18 Cal.2d 627, 117 P.2d 3. (4) The trial court erred in admitting expert evidence of the meaning of "insurability" and its alleged relationship to aviaton activities as understood by insurance companies instead of relying on the common and ordinary meaning of said term as understood by a policyholder. Robinson v. Casualty Commonwealth Company, 224 Mo.App. 969, 27 S.W.2d 49; Soukop v. Employers Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited of London, England, 341 Mo. 614, 108 S.W.2d 86, 112 A. L. R. 149; Sussex v. Aetna Life Assurance Company, 33 D. L. R. 549, 38 O. L. R. 365; Heald v. Aetna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut, 340 Mo. 1143, 104 S.W.2d 379; Block v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, 316 Mo. 278, 290 S.W. 429; Spencer v. Farmers' Mutual Insurance Company of Sullivan County, 65 S.W.2d 665. (5) When insured's tender of the premium was refused by Respondent, the beneficiary's rights were not affected by insured's failure to make further tenders of premium. Newman v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, 7 S.W.2d 115; Klinkhardt v. Crescent Insurance Company, 47 S.W.2d 210; Hawkins v. Washington Fidelity National Insurance Company, 230 Mo.App. 882, 78 S.W.2d 543; Wayland v. Western Life Indemnity Company, 166 Mo.App. 221, 148 S.W. 626. (6) The trial court erred in refusing to allow reasonable attorney fees and damages for vexatious delay. Sec. 6040, R. S. A. Mo., 1939; Hampe v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 21 S.W.2d 926; Bonzon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 143 S.W.2d 336; Exchange Bank of Novinger v. Turner, 14, S.W.2d 425; Glosch v. Central Life Insurance Company of Illinois, 176 S.W.2d 46; Hayes v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 235 Mo.App. 1261, 150 S.W.2d 1113.

Henry I. Eager, Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk, Eager & Swanson, for respondent.

(1) The term "insurability" certainly means more than mere "good health" and an "insurable interest," and the court correctly so decided; it comprehends various factors directly affecting the risk including aviation activities; under the policy terms and the facts there was no obligation on defendant to reinstate the policy. Kallman v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, (N. Y. Sup., Appellate Div.) 288 N.Y.S. 1032, 248 A.D. 146 affirmed (N. Y. Ct. App.) 272 N.Y. 648, 5 N.E.2d 375; Kahn v. Continental Casualty Co., 325 Ill.App. 1, 59 N.E.2d 524; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Pettid, Ariz., 11 P.2d 833; Greenberg v. Continental Casualty Co. (Cal. App. 1938) 75 P.2d 644; Ginsberg v. Eastern Life Ins. Co., (N. J. Chancery) 178 A. 378; Gessler v. New York Life Ins. Co., (Utah 1945) 156 P.2d 212; Dunford v. Prudential Ins. Co., decided June 16, 1942 (opinion not published), affirmed 39 N.Y.S. (2d) 997; Elliott v. Frankfort Marine, etc., Co., (Cal. Sup.) 156 P. 481; Ridgley v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., (N. Y. Sup., Appellate Div.) 145 N.Y.S. 1075, affirmed 112 N.E.2d 1073; Joyner v. Ohio National, (C. C. A. 5) 118 F.2d 1008; Brouster v. John Hancock Mut. Life, Mo. 171 S.W.2d 775; Bankers Life Ins. Co. v. Bowie, (C. C. A. 10) 121 F.2d 779; State Mutual Life v. Rosenberry, Texas 213 S.W. 243; Lanier v. New York Life, (C. C. A. 5) 88 F.2d 196; California-Western States Life v. Feinstein, (Cal. Sup.) 101 P.2d 701; Magers v. Northwestern Mut. Life, 348 Mo. 96, 152 S.W.2d 148; Fox v. Mutual Benefit Life, (C. C. A. 8) 107 F.2d 715; Rose v. Franklin Life, 153 Mo.App. 90, 132 S.W. 613; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Pearson, (D. C. Mo.) 24 F.Supp. 311; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Pearson, 24 F.Supp. 313; Williams v. American Life, Mo. 112 S.W.2d 909; State ex rel. Metropolitan Life v. Shain, 334 Mo. 385, 66 S.W.2d 871; Jenkins v. Covenant Mutual Life, 171 Mo. 375, 71 S.W. 688; Aetna Life v. Daniel, 328 Mo. 876, 42 S.W.2d 584; Gibson v. Kansas City Life (Mo.), 136 S.W.2d 131; Martin v. Metropolitan Life (Mo.), 113 S.W.2d 1025. (2) The reinstatement provisions are not ambiguous. Kahn v. Continental Casualty Co. (Ill. App.), 59 N.E.2d 524; Kallman v. Equitable Life, 288 N.Y.S. 1032; Greenberg v. Continental Cas. Co. (Cal. App. 1938), 75 P.2d 644; Peters v. Continental Life (Pa.), 193 A. 460; State ex rel. Prudential v. Shain (In Banc), 127 S.W.2d 675; Rev. St. New Jersey, 1937, Sec. 17:34-15 Par. i; Stahl v. American National (Mo.), 70 S.W.2d 78. (3) The action of defendant was not in any way capricious or arbitrary, and the court properly so found. Kallman v. Equitable Life, 248 A.D. 146, 288 N.Y.S. 1032 (affirmed 272 N.Y. 648); Kahn v. Continental Casualty Co., 325 Ill.App. 1, 59 N.E.2d 524; Greenberg v. Continental Casualty Co., (Cal. App.) 75 P.2d 644; Ginsberg v. Eastern Life Ins. Co. (N. J.), 178 A. 378; Gressler v. N. Y. Life (Utah) 156 P.2d 212; Elliott v. Frankfort Marine, (Calif.) 156 P. 481. (4) The evidence of Mr. Shepherd and Mr. Budinger was admissible and highly material. Kahn v. Continental Casualty Co., 325 Ill.App. 1, 59 N.E.2d 524; Magers v. Northwestern Mutual, 348 Mo. 96, 152 S.W.2d 148; Jefferson Standard Life v. Clemmer (C. C. A. 4), 79 F.2d 724, 732, 733; Penn. Mutual v. Mechanics Savings Bank, (C. C. A.) 72 F. 413, 428; Fox v. Mutual Benefit Life, (C. C. A. 8) 107 F.2d 715; Rose v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 153 Mo.App. 90, 132 S.W. 613; Lindsey v. Prudential Ins. Co., (D. C. Mo.) 16 F.Supp. 880, 883; Liebing v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 269 Mo. 509, 191 S.W. 250; Fair Mercantile Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 175 S.W.2d 930, 934. (5) The question of attorneys' fees and damages is not before this...