Larue v. The Kansas Mutual Life Insurance Company

• Decision Date: 06 February 1904
• Docket Number: 13,499
• Citation: 75 P. 494,68 Kan. 539
• Parties: VASHTI LARUE v. THE KANSAS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

75 P. 494

68 Kan. 539

VASHTI LARUE v. THE KANSAS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

No. 13,499

Supreme Court of Kansas

February 6, 1904

Decided January, 1904.

Error from Coffey district court; DENNIS MADDEN, judge.

Judgment affirmed.

SYLLABUS

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.

1. LIFE INSURANCE--Liability Limited in Case of Death while in Military Service. A policy of life insurance provided that the insured might serve in the military service of the United States in time of war by giving the insurance company notice and paying an extra premium for the war hazard otherwise, in case of death, the company should be liable for the reserve on the policy only. The insured enlisted in the service of the United States and was killed on the island of Mindanao, one of the Philippines, in May, 1900. No extra premium was paid. Held, that the company was not liable for more than the reserve on the policy.

2. JUDICIAL NOTICE--Treaty with Spain--Philippine Insurrection. Courts of this country take judicial notice that under the treaty of Paris, between the United States and the kingdom of Spain, signed December 10, 1898, the Philippine islands became a part of our territory, and that after that time the inhabitants of those islands were in a state of insurrection against the government. Judicial notice is taken also of the fact that in 1902 the insurrection had not ended in the island of Mindanao.

Joe Rolston, and C. B. Graves, for plaintiff in error.

Theodore K. Long, Henry W. Price, and Herrick Allen, for defendant in error.

SMITH J. All the Justices concurring.

OPINION

SMITH, J.:

Edward LaRue, son of the plaintiff in error, was insured in the sum of $ 1000 by the Kansas Mutual Life Insurance Company under a policy which contained the following condition:

"Military or Naval Service.--The insured under this policy is permitted to serve in the militia or in the military or naval force of the United States in time of peace without prejudice to his policy; and he may so serve in time of war by giving the company notice in writing, and paying an extra premium therefor, not to exceed three per cent per annum upon the amount insured. But should such notice not be given and the extra premium for war hazard not be paid at the time the risk is incurred, the company will be liable for the reserve only on this policy, computed according to the actuaries' table of mortality and four per cent. interest."

In September, 1899, the policy being in force, LaRue enlisted in the volunteer service of the United States and went with his regiment to the Philippine islands. No extra premium was paid on the policy. In May, 1900, he was killed at the village of Loculan in the island of Mindanao, by a blow from a weapon known as a bolo, in the hands of an insurrecto. Such facts appeared in the proofs of death given to the company.

This was an action by the mother of the deceased, and beneficiary under the policy, to recover the full amount of the insurance. She was defeated in the trial court.

Plaintiff below offered to prove that Loculan, the place where the assured was killed, was in a region where there was no armed resistance against the forces of the United States; that the insured, with his company, was sent there from the island of Luzon, after a period of active service, for the purpose of having an opportunity to rest; that the soldiers stood guard with empty guns; that prior to the death of the insured there was no disturbance of any kind on that island or at that place. The offer of this proof was rejected, on the ground that the court took judicial notice that the inhabitants of the island of Mindanao were at the time in a state of insurrection against the sovereignty of the United States government.

The argument of counsel for plaintiff in error is that the condition requiring notice to the company and payment of an extra premium by a policy-holder serving in the military forces in time of war was to enable the company to protect itself against the extra hazard to life resultant on increased danger to which the insured might be subject when engaged in actual warfare. This contention is illustrated by counsel in supposing that the deceased had lost his life at Fort Riley, in this state, after enlistment, and while his regiment was awaiting orders to move to the Philippine islands. In such case, it is urged, the fact that the United. States might have been engaged in war when the insured died would not be deemed material. Whatever the rights of the plaintiff in error might have been in the hypothetical case assumed by counsel it is unnecessary to discuss.

We judicially know that under the treaty of Paris between the United States and the kingdom of Spain, signed December 10, 1898, the Philippine islands became a part of the territory of the United States, and that after that time the inhabitants of those islands were in a state of insurrection against our government. The existence of war is a political question and not a judicial one. Courts take notice, without proof, of the acts of the different political departments of the government. (See Philips v. Hatch, 1 Dill. [C. C.] 571, 19 F. Cas. 501, Fed. Cas. No. 11,094.)

In passing on a...