Lamar Life Ins. Co v. Minor

• Decision Date: 07 May 1934
• Docket Number: 31230
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: LAMAR LIFE INS. CO v. MINOR

154 So. 542

170 Miss. 223

LAMAR LIFE INS. CO
v.
MINOR

No. 31230

Supreme Court of Mississippi

May 7, 1934

Division A

Suggestion Of Error Overruled June 11, 1934.

APPEAL from circuit court of Adams county HON. R. L. CORBAN, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Alice Doss Minor against the Lamar Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals, and plaintiff filed a cross-appeal. Affirmed. [170 Miss. 224]

Affirmed.

Wells, Wells & Lipscomb, of Jackson, for appellant.

The policy in the case at bar is a nonparticipating policy during the premium paying period. The cash surrender value was absolutely fixed in dollars and cents, to-wit, on October 18, 1932, one hundred seventy-seven dollars. There is no provision in the policy for deducting any amount from any other amount to arrive at that one hundred seventy-seven dollars. That one hundred seventy-seven dollars, the cash surrender value, was agreed upon between the parties to constitute the basis in the formula to be used and which was used by the Lamar Life Insurance Company for arriving at the amount and term of the automatic extended insurance.

The rules as to liberal or strict construction are, however, to be applied fairly and reasonably. Not only must there be an unexplained ambiguity in the language of the contract (Union Life Ins. Co. v. Jameson, 31 Ind.App. 28, 67 N.E. 199), but, even when it exists, the court, in construing the contract, cannot go further than a fair construction of the language used will permit.

Behling v. Northwestern Natl. Life Ins. Co., 117 Wis. 24, 93 N.W. 800; 1 Cooley, Briefs on the Law of Insurance, page 637; Liverpool & London & Globe Ins. Co. v. Kearney, 94 F. 314, 36 C. C. A. 265, 46. W. 414, 2 Ind. T. 67; Washington Fire Ins. Co. v. Davison, 30 Md. 91; Seecomb v. Provincial Ins. Co. (Mass.), 10 Allen 305; Guarantee Company of North America v. Mechanics' Savings Bank, 183 U.S. 402, 46 L.Ed. 253; Interstate Businessmen's Accident Association v. Lewis, 257 F. 241; Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 2 F.2d 795; Ponder v. Lamar Life Ins. Co., 6 F.2d 297; Mississippi Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ingram, 34 Miss. 215; Cooperative Life Association v. Leflore, 53 Miss. 1; American Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Nirdlinger, 113 Miss. 74, at 84 and 85.

The contract is plain and unambiguous and the company [170 Miss. 225] in calculating the amount of the paid-up term insurance and the term thereof clearly carried out the terms of that agreement.

The effort is made in this case, and successfully in the lower court, to persuade the court that it should not follow the plain contractual stipulations set forth in paragraph 18, page 3, of the policy of insurance, as to the amount of the paid-up term insurance and the term thereof. The lower court fell...