Lukens v. International Life Insurance Co.
| Decision Date | 17 January 1917 |
| Citation | 191 S.W. 418,269 Mo. 574 |
| Parties | MAGGIE L. LUKENS v. INTERNATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. E. Porterfield, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Humphrey Boxley & Reeves and Edward P. Wilson for appellant.
(1) If Frank E. Lukens committed suicide, then his beneficiary, the plaintiff, never had a cause of action against defendant first, because the contract of insurance sued on was lawfully made in the State of Illinois; second, because the contract of insurance did not insure against the contingency of suicide; and third, because the insured committed suicide. (2) The constitutional question lodged by respondent should have been raised on the pleadings by replication as it is well settled law that in so grave a matter as a constitutional question it should be lodged in the case at the earliest moment that good pleadings and orderly procedure will admit under the circumstances of the given case otherwise it will be waived. Lohmeyer v. Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 689. Defendant grounded an affirmative defense on a statute that plaintiff contended was unconstitutional, therefore she should have pleaded its unconstitutionality in the reply. Lohmeyer v. Cordage Co., 214 Mo. 690; Dubowsky v. Binggeli, 258 Mo. 202; State v. Gamma, 215 Mo. 100; Howell v. Sherwood, 242 Mo. 513; Hartzler v. Met. St. Ry. Co., 218 Mo. 564; Hays v. Hogan, 180 Mo.App. 237, 253. (3) Plaintiff was denied no right by the provision of section 6945 complained against by reason of the fact that she was a resident of Illinois. Had she been a citizen of Missouri the statute would operate just the same. Chambers v. Railroad, 207 U.S. 142. In this clause the legislative enactment in question put a condition on the policy, which only applied to citizens of Missouri, and a State may enact statutes providing conditions for recovery on contracts. 8 Cyc. 1049; Ins. Co. v. Daggs, 172 U.S. 557; Daggs v. Orient Ins. Co., 136 Mo. 382. Section 2, article 4, Federal Constitution, is intended to prohibit the States from denying to the citizen of another State any of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its own citizens by virtue of their being citizens. 8 Cyc. 1037; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. (U.S.) 168.
George J. Kuebler and Scarritt, Scarritt, Jones & Miller for respondent.
(1) The issues of law and fact involved in this appeal were judicially determined in favor of the plaintiff herein and against the defendant herein in the circuit court of Cook County, Illinois, a court of competent jurisdiction, in a suit of the appellant against the respondent. It was there found and adjudged that the contract of insurance sued on herein was executed in the State of Missouri and that its construction is subject to the laws of that State; that in the law action pending in the State of Missouri (being the suit at bar), the alleged suicide of the insured does not constitute a defense; that the amount due under the said contract of insurance is fixed and certain and that upon the face of the policy the amount due is two thousand dollars; that the said court in Illinois had full jurisdiction of the subject-matter of and the respective parties to the said cause therein pending, and that the complainant therein, defendant here, is not entitled to the relief sought, viz: the cancellation and surrender of the policy here sued on; that the report of proofs taken by the master in chancery therein be and the same was adopted as the proofs of the respective parties thereto; and that the said bill of complaint was adjudged to be and it was thereby dismissed for want of equity, and that the defendant recover her costs therein incurred. And that judgment being plead in the reply as res adjudicata and being duly proven is a conclusive determination against the defendant of the alleged defense of suicide set up in the answer. Barber Asphalt Pav. Co. v. Field, 132 Mo.App. 628; Gardner v. Gas & El. Co., 154 Mo.App. 666; Choteau v. Gibson, 76 Mo. 45; Exposition & Driving Park v. Kansas City, 174 Mo. 442; Reynolds v. Hood, 209 Mo. 620; Tool Co. v. Spring Co., 146 Mo.App. 30; Pierce v. Pierce, 149 Mo.App. 416; Leet v. Gratz, 137 Mo.App. 208; Railroad v. United States, 168 U.S. 1; Hopkins v. Lee, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 113; Mining Co. v. Mining Co., 157 U.S. 691; New Orleans v. Bank, 167 U.S. 396. (2) The suicide statute before amended was valid. By that statute its benefits were conferred upon and enjoyed equally and alike by the owners of the policies of insurance issued by companies doing business in this State without any discrimination between such owners by reason of citizenship, residence, or otherwise. And that law so written has been uniformly adjudged to be constitutional and valid. Jarman v. Indemnity Co., 104 F. 638; Indemnity Co. v. Jarman, 187 U.S. 197; Schmidt v. U. O. F., 228 Mo. 675; Whitfield v. Ins. Co., 205 U.S. 489. (3) The Act of April 15, 1899 (Laws 1899, p. 246), which purports to amend the general statute above referred to by inserting therein after the words, "doing business in this State," the following words, namely, "to a citizen of this State," is unconstitutional and void: (a) It is partial to and discriminates in favor of the citizens of Missouri as against citizens of other States, contrary to the guaranties of the second section of article 4 of the United States Constitution, providing that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Blake v. McClung, 172 U.S. 239; Sully v. Bank, 178 U.S. 289; Maynard v. Granite State P. Assn., 92 F. 435; Johnstone v. Kelly, 7 Pennewill (Del.), 119. (b) It is an attempt on the part of the State of Missouri to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and so deny to persons within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Ex parte Virginia, 100 U.S. 346; Barbier v. Connelly, 113 U.S. 31; Durkee v. Janesville, 28 Wis. 471; Sams v. Railroad, 174 Mo. 69; State ex rel. v. Hermann, 75 Mo. 353; State ex rel. v. Julow, 129 Mo. 177; State v. Busch, 170 Mo. 117; Houston v. Pub. Co., 249 Mo. 332. (4) The amendatory Act of 1899 being unconstitutional and void, the previous statute, Sec. 5855, R. S. 1889, remains the law of this State, and under this law the alleged suicide confessedly is no defense. Lexington v. Bank, 165 Mo. 681; People v. Butler St. F. & I. Co., 201 Ill. 236; Wilkinson v. Bd. of Children's Gdns., 158 Ind. 1; Barker v. Potter, 55 Nev. 25; Whitlock v. Hawkins, 105 Va. 242. (5) The contract of insurance sued on and all of the issues in the case are to be construed and determined under and in accordance with the laws of the State of Missouri and not under the laws of Illinois or any other State. That this proposition is true is self-evident from the simple fact that no statute or law of Illinois or any other State is pleaded or relied upon by the defendant, nor is there any evidence in the record tending to show what is the law of any such State. This court, therefore, is not confronted with a claim that the law of Illinois or any other State is different from the law of Missouri and that under such foreign law defendant enjoys rights and authority it cannot have under the laws of this State; and there being no issue raised in that respect and no evidence of any variance between the laws of Missouri and Illinois, this court must of necessity apply the law of the forum in the determination of the controversies now presented. 5 Thompson on Law of Corporations, secs. 5968, 5972; Day v. Buggy Co., 57 Mich. 146. The suicide clause of the contract being a violation of the positive legislation of this State will not be enforced by the courts of this State. Donovan v. Pitcher, 53 Ala. 411; Schllee v. Guckenheimer, 179 Ill. 593; Faulkner v. Hyman, 142 Mass. 63.
OPINION
In Banc.
This is an action by the beneficiary on a policy of insurance for $ 2000, dated August 15, 1911, and issued by the appellant. The judgment below was in favor of respondent for the full amount thereof, together with interest and $ 600 for damages and attorneys' fees on account of vexations refusal to pay, the aggregate being $ 2690.
At the trial, and conformable to proper allegations in its answer, appellant offered evidence tending to show that the insured committed suicide within one year from the date of the policy. This respondent moved to strike from the record on the ground that the suicide clause in the policy of insurance was of no force and effect, because that part of the suicide statute of Missouri which limits the benefits thereof "to a citizen of this State" is unconstitutional, in that it denies to persons not citizens of this State the equal protection of the law and does not afford citizens of other States the privileges and immunities which it provides for its own citizens. This motion was sustained and the evidence tending to show suicide was rejected.
The policy contained the following provision:
Such facts as are pertinent will be found in connection with the discussion of the subject to which they are material.
I. The first question challenging attention is whether the contract sued upon is governed by the laws of Missouri or Illinois, and this depends upon where it was finally consummated. In determining this it should be borne in mind that the action is on a policy of insurance, and not upon a contract for a policy of insurance....
To continue reading
Request your trial