O'Laughlin v. Union Cent. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 March 1882 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | O'LAUGHLIN v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO. [1] |
This is a suit by the guardian of Eugene and Mary Anne Byrnes minors, on a policy of insurance upon the life of their mother, for their benefit.
The petition states that the mother died on the tenth of January 1875, and alleges a full compliance with the conditions of the policy by the assured and the plaintiff. The answer denies that the assured and plaintiff fully complied with the conditions and requirements of the policy sued on, and alleges that the policy is void because of certain misrepresentations made by the assured to the defendant's agent when she applied for insurance on her life.
The case was tried before a jury.
The plaintiff introduced the policy sued on, in evidence. It contained the following condition, upon which it was issued and accepted by the assured, viz.:
'No suit shall be brought upon this policy unless brought within one year after the death of the person whose life is insured.'
The defendant admitted the death of the assured, and a compliance by her and the plaintiff with the conditions of the policy except as to bringing suit within a year after the assured's death. It also admitted that a suit had been brought within the time specified in the policy, and that a nonsuit had been taken therein, and the present suit instituted shortly afterwards, but after the expiration of the year; and that the beneficiaries named in the policy were minors.
The defendant thereupon introduced evidence tending to show that it was induced to issue the policy by a misrepresentation.
The plaintiff introduced evidence in rebuttal.
The evidence being all in, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury that under the evidence the plaintiff could not recover. The instruction being refused, other instructions were asked.
The court took time to consider the matter, and on the next day delivered the following opinion, and charged the jury as appears below.
The points made by the defendant sufficiently appear in the opinion of the court.
Donovan & Conroy, for plaintiff.
Harris & Joy, for defendant.
As I intimated yesterday, this is a question to which, on first impression, I should be inclined to apply the rule which it seems one of the courts of Cincinnati adopted, and that is the bringing of a suit upon a policy within the year, and if there be a nonsuit, a renewal of the action without delay, in compliance with the conditions; and if I were to rule according to my first impression, that would be the decision of the question. But the supreme court of the United States in the case in 7 Wall., have changed it by unquestionable decisions of the two propositions: First, that this condition is a valid one--one which the parties have a right to make and one which the courts must enforce; and, secondly, that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gill v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co.
...Infancy of the beneficiary is no defense to the limitation of time in the policy within which action may be brought. O'Laughlin v. Union Cent. Ins. Co., 11 F. 280, 3 McCrary, 543; Suggs v. Travelers' Ins. Co., Tex. 579, 9 S.W. 676, 1 L.R.A. 847; Mead v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 68 Kan. 432, 104 Am......
-
The Turrett Crown
... ... 396-398, 107 C.C.A. 416, supra; Arthur v. Homestead Ins ... Co., 78 N.Y. 462, 34 Am.Rep. 550; Guthrie v ... ...
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. California Ins. Co.
... ... Homestead Ins. Co., 78 N.Y. 462; Laughlin v. Union ... Central Life Ins. Co., 11 F. 280; Garretson v ... Hawkeye Ins. Co., ... ...
-
Reiter v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.
...assume is that of strict compliance with the provisions relating to the time within which suit must be brought. O'Laughlin v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., C.C., 11 F. 280; Suggs v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 71 Tex. 579, 9 S.W. 676, 1 L.R.A. 847; Mead v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 1904, 68 Kan. 432, 75 P.......