Law v. New England Mut. Acc. Ass'n

• Citation: 53 N.W. 1104,94 Mich. 266
• Parties: LAW v. NEW ENGLAND MUT. ACC. ASS'N.
• Decision Date: 22 December 1892
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

53 N.W. 1104

94 Mich. 266

LAW v. NEW ENGLAND MUT. ACC. ASS'N.

Supreme Court of Michigan

December 22, 1892

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; GEORGE S. HOSMER, Judge.

Action by Theodore V. Law against the New England Mutual Accident Association of Boston, Mass. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

James H. Pound, for appellant.

John D. Conely, for appellee.

DURAND J.

This suit is brought upon a certificate of insurance issued by the defendant company to the plaintiff, by the terms of which it agreed to pay him certain specified sums of money in case he suffered personal bodily injuries of a certain character mentioned in the certificate, at any time during its life. During the life of the certificate or policy, and on April 9 1890, the plaintiff was injured to an extent which partially prevented him from practicing his profession as a physician for a period of about four weeks. The plaintiff notified the defendant of the accident, who made an examination into the fact, and a correspondence was had between the parties in relation to the subject-matter, extending until November 4, 1890, at which time the defendant, through its agent, practically declined to pay, and informed the plaintiff that "perhaps it would be better to let the courts decide this matter." On December 18, 1890, plaintiff began a suit in justice's court to recover upon the certificate against the defendant, which is a foreign corporation; and on January 12, 1891, the suit was quashed, on the ground that a justice's court summons could not be lawfully served upon a foreign corporation. Nothing further was done by the plaintiff in reference to the enforcement of his claim until June 15, 1891, when this suit was begun. The certificate contained a clause as follows: "And no suit or proceeding at law or in equity shall be brought, or arbitration required, to recover any sum, unless the same is commenced within one year from the time of the alleged accidental injury." Upon the trial the circuit judge directed a verdict for the defendant on the ground that the action was not begun within a year after the accident occurred, as required by the policy. The plaintiff claims this is error. We do not agree with this contention. As early as November 4, 1890, the plaintiff was fully advised that the defendant would not pay the claim, and all attempts looking towards an arbitration or settlement of it ceased. This...