Lewis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 03 January 1902
• Citation: 180 Mass. 317,62 N.E. 369
• Parties: LEWIS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

180 Mass. 317

62 N.E. 369

LEWIS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 3, 1902

COUNSEL

Edward H. Savary, Carlton A. Perry, and Leon E. Baldwin, for plaintiff.

Wm. M Butler and Guy W. Cox, for defendant.

OPINION

KNOWLTON J.

The insurance policy in this case on which the action is brought contains the following provision: 'No suit shall be brought or action commenced after six months from the date of the death of the insured, it being understood and agreed that, if any suit or action be commenced after said six months, the lapse of time shall be taken to be conclusive evidence against any claim, the provisions of any and all statutes of limitations to the contrary being hereby waived.' The insured died March 3, 1899. The writ was dated January 20, 1900. It is well settled that a provision of this kind in a policy is valid and binding on the insured. Amesbury v. Insurance Co., 6 Gray, 596, and cases there cited; Fullam v. Insurance Co., 7 Gray, 61, 66 Am. Dec. 462; Jennings v. Insurance Co., 148 Mass 61, 18 N.E. 601; Carlson v. Insurance Co., 172 Mass 142, 51 N.E. 525. It appears that the policy was issued in November, 1898; that the insured died on March 3, 1899; that due notice and proofs of death were sent to the defendant that about four weeks after the death of the insured the company refused to pay the claim, and that a suit was brought on the policy in the name of a supposed beneficiary on April 11, 1899, in which there was a judgment for the defendant. The plaintiff, in connection with the proceedings in that suit, invokes Pub. St. c. 197, § 13, which, notwithstanding the general statute of limitations, allows a new action to be brought at any time within one year 'if in an action duly commenced within the time limited and allowed in this or the preceding chapter' the writ fails of a sufficient service or return by an unavoidable accident, or by neglect of the officer, or if the writ is abated, or the action otherwise avoided or defeated by the death of a party thereto, or for any matter of form, or if, after a verdict for the plaintiff, the judgment is arrested, or if a judgment for the plaintiff is reversed on a writ of error. But this statute does not apply to the present case, because the limitation here is by contract, while the extension of time given by the above statute is only in cases where the plaintiff would be cut off...