Lee v. Prudential Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 October 1909
• Citation: 203 Mass. 299,89 N.E. 529
• Parties: LEE v. PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

203 Mass. 299

89 N.E. 529

LEE v. PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Berkshire.

October 19, 1909

Oct 19, 1909.

COUNSEL

P. J Ashe, for plaintiff.

Edwd. D. Duffield and Mark E. Couch, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON, C.J.

This is an action upon a policy of life insurance in which the plaintiff is named as the beneficiary. The policy states that a part of the consideration for the agreement of the insurance company is 'the application for this policy, which is hereby made a part of this contract.' The application itself, which was annexed to the policy, was signed byGeorge H. Lee, the insured, and it contained a statement that the application should 'become a part of the contract for insurance hereby applied for.' The policy and the application together constitute the contract between the parties, and both alike are to be considered in determining their rights. In the application the insured made this agreement: 'It is agreed that the policy * * * shall not take effect until the same shall be issued and delivered by the said company, and the first premium paid thereon in full, while my health is in the same condition as described in this application.' The condition described was that of 'good health.'

The defendant contended that payment of the premium while the insured was in good health was a condition precedent to the policy's taking effect, and that, as the burden was upon the plaintiff to show that there was a contract which became binding upon the defendant, it was incumbent upon her to prove not only that the policy was delivered, but that the first premium was paid while the insured was in good health. The judge so ruled and the plaintiff excepted. This ruling was correct. It was in accordance with the plain import of the language; and the language of a contract of insurance is as binding upon both parties as that of any other contract. It was also in accordance with decisions in this and other states. Gallant v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 167 Mass. 79, 44 N.E. 1073; Barker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 188 Mass. 542, 74 N.E. 945; Packard v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 72 N.H. 1, 54 A. 287; McClave v. Mutual Life Reserve, 55 N. J. Law, 188, 26 A. 78; Langstaff v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 69 N. J. Law, 54, 54 A. 518; Anders v. Life Insurance Clearing Co., 62 Neb. 585, 87 N.W. 331; Reese v. Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Ass'n, 111 Ga. 482, 36 S.E. 637; Ormond v. Association, 96 N.C. 158, 1 S.E. 796; Volker v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 1 Misc. Rep. 374, 21 N.Y.S. 456; 25 Cyc. 719.

The ruling went further, to the effect that there was no evidence to submit to the jury on this point, and a verdict for the defendant was directed, subject to the plaintiff's exception. The evidence seems very convincing in favor of the defendant, and it is not to be supposed that, upon the testimony reported, a jury would have found for the plaintiff. But the testimony which seems to present the facts clearly on this point came almost entirely from witnesses called by the defendant. The question of law before us relates, not to the weight of the evidence, but to the existence or nonexistence of evidence which, taken by itself alone, would warrant an inference that the plaintiff was in good health at the time of the payment. On this question the plaintiff is entitled to have the case considered as it was before the defendant's witnesses were called. Was there anything before the jury which would warrant a finding for the plaintiff if no credit was given to the witnesses called by the defendant?

The policy contains a promise to pay the plaintiff, in consideration of the application, 'and of the payment, in the manner specified, of the premium herein stated.' This must mean the manner specified in the contract, including the application, if the application contains any specification as to the manner of payment. There are different specifications as to the payment of the premium. By the terms of the policy it is to be paid quarter-annually in exchange for the company's receipt, and the time is to be on the delivery of the policy, and on or before the 29th day of March, June, September and December in every year during the continuance of the policy. The place of payment is the home office of the company. By the terms of the application, in order to give the policy effect, the first premium is to be paid while the insured is in good health. It is a matter not free from doubt whether all, and if not all, how...