Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Daniel

• Decision Date: 06 May 1941
• Citation: 151 S.W.2d 63,286 Ky. 579
• Parties: LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE v. DANIEL.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

151 S.W.2d 63

286 Ky. 579

LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE v. DANIEL.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

May 6, 1941

Appeal from Circuit Court, Warren County; John B. Rodes, Special Judge.

Action on a life policy containing a double indemnity provision by Lucy Daniel against the Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee. From a judgment for the plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

G. D Milliken, Sr., of Bowling Green, for appellant.

Harlin & Harlin and H. W. Vincent, all of Bowling Green, for appellee.

CAMMACK Justice.

Felix Lindsey, a Bowling Green soliciting agent for the Life &amp Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, solicited and secured an application for a policy of insurance from Henderson Daniel on September 7, 1937. The policy was a $500 one with a double indemnity provision in case of accidental death. The weekly premium was twenty-five cents. Lindsey testified that Daniel made no payment on September 7th, but promised to pay him fifty cents on the following day; that when he then saw him Daniel paid only twenty-five cents; and that he gave him a receipt for that amount, but not on the regular receipt form. The application which Lindsey forwarded to the company on September 11th showed that fifty cents was collected from the applicant. The application had attached to it a receipt form which provided, among other things, that the company, upon its approval of the application, would be liable from the time it was made if the amount paid at that time was not less than four weekly premiums. This receipt also provided for its surrender in the case of a claim for benefits prior to the issuance of the policy. Lindsey testified further that the standard receipt form was not delivered to Daniel on September 7th, or on the day a premium was paid. Daniel was killed accidentally on September 12th. Without knowledge of his death the company issued the policy on September 20th. It was not delivered to the beneficiary who was Daniel's wife. Mrs. Daniel obtained a judgment for $1,000 in the lower court; hence this appeal.

In urging reversal the company insists that there was no legally consummated contract of insurance between it and Daniel and that the verdict of the jury is not supported by the evidence. It is argued that an application for insurance constitutes a proposal or offer the terms of which must be met before a contract of insurance is consummated; that an applicant is bound by the conditions set forth in the application; and that he is presumed to know the terms of insurance upon which the policy of insurance may be issued and the specific limitations of the soliciting agent as set out in the application.

We have examined this record carefully, including the application form. This examination convinces us that there was a condition under which Daniel's insurance could have become effective at the time of the making of the application. In his case the payment of premiums in the amount of $1 would have been sufficient, subject of course to the approval of the company. The latter question seems not to be in the picture, because the company did issue a policy though it did so after the time of Daniel's death, of which it had no notice; and also the company says in its brief that,...