Massachusetts Protective Ass'n, Inc. v. Daugherty

Decision Date26 May 1930
Docket Number12464.
Citation87 Colo. 469,288 P. 888
PartiesMASSACHUSETTS PROTECTIVE ASS'N, Inc., v. DAUGHERTY.
CourtColorado Supreme Court

Error to District Court, Pueblo County; James A. Park, Judge.

Affirmed.

Brandenburg & Brandenburg, of Denver, Phelps Baker & Gobin, of Pueblo, and Frederick H. Nash, of Boston Mass. (John H. Voorhees, of Pueblo, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Charles M. Rose, of Pueblo, for defendant in error.

BUTLER J.

Nora V Daugherty, herein referred to as the plaintiff, recovered judgment on an insurance policy issued by the Massachusetts Protective Association, herein referred to as the defendant. The defendant seeks a reversal of that judgment.

On April 15, 1924, the defendant issued its policy, whereby it insured the plaintiff's husband, Frank E. Daugherty against loss resulting from bodily injuries effected by accidental means, 'excluding self-destruction, * * * while sane or insane.' On August 19, 1926, the insured committed suicide. Suit was brought within the time specified in the policy.

1. Where a person commits suicide while insane, the death is an accident. Officer v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 74 Colo. 217, 220 P. 499; London Guarantee & Accident Co. v. Officer, 78 Colo. 441, 242 P. 989; Accident Insurance Co. v. Crandal, 120 U.S. 527, 7 S.Ct. 685, 30 L.Ed. 740; Manhattan Life Insurance Co. v. Broughton, 109 U.S. 121, 3 S.Ct. 99, 27 L.Ed. 878. There was ample evidence to support the finding that the insured was insane when he committed suicide. The defendant's contention to the contrary cannot be sustained.

2. In 1913, the Legislature passed an act, C. L. § 2532, that provides as follows: 'From and after the passage of this act, the suicide of a policy holder after the first policy year, of any life insurance company doing business in this state, shall not be a defense against the payment of a life insurance policy, whether said suicide was voluntary or involuntary, and whether said policy holder was sane or insane.'

In this case the suicide occurred after the first policy year. We have held that such provision is not in conflict with the Constitution; that it applies to life insurance policies, whether issued by a life insurance company or by an accident insurance company; and that any provision in a policy attempting to relieve an insurer from liability in case of suicide is a nullity. Head Camp Woodmen of the World v. Sloss, 49 Colo. 177, 112 P. 49, 31 L.R.A. (N. S.) 831; Officer v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 74 Colo. 217, 220 P. 499.

3. The policy sued upon provides that, 'in the event of accidental death immediate notice thereof must be given to the Association.' Notice was given two years and eighteen days after the death of the insured. The defendant contends that by reason of her delay in giving notice, the plaintiff cannot recover in this action. There are two reasons why we cannot sustain the defendant's contention.

(a) The notice, if any were necessary, was given in apt time. When the plaintiff examined the policy after the death of her husband, she was confronted with this provision: 'The Massachusetts Protective Association * * * does hereby insure * * * Frank E. Daugherty * * * against loss resulting * * * from * * * bodily injuries effected * * * by accidental means (excluding self-destruction * * * while sane or insane). * * *' Misled by the provision, she refrained from making a claim until, quite by accident, she discovered that she could compel the defendant to pay the loss, notwithstanding its declared intention not to do so; whereupon she promptly notified the defendant of her husband's suicide. The defendant admits, and it is the law, that notice within a reasonable time would be a compliance with the requirement that 'immediate' notice be given. What is a reasonable time depends upon the circumstances. The trial court found that the plaintiff relied upon the provision quoted above; that she was deceived and misled thereby; that notice was not sooner given because of her reliance upon that provision; and the 'due and proper notice and proof of loss were made herein within a reasonable time under all the circumstances of the case.' This finding is supported by the evidence. We assume, of course, that the provision was not inserted in the policy with deliberate intent to mislead, but it clearly has a tendency to mislead, and probably ninety-nine persons out of one hundred would be misled by it. Though not intended to be a trap, it operated as such in the present instance. It would be unjust to permit the defendant to profit by a delay caused by its own misleading statement.

(b) Notice was not necessary. The absolute refusal of an insurer to pay the loss in any event waives compliance with a provision requiring notice and proof of loss. California Insurance Co. v. Gracey, 15 Colo. 70, 24 P. 577, 22 Am.St.Rep. 376; Supreme Lodge, Knights of Honor, v. Davis, 26 Colo. 252, 58 P. 595; Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Hammond 41 Colo. 323, 92 P. 686; National Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v....

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Walker v. American Automobile Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 13, 1934
    ...200 Fed. 675; Gunsul v. American Surety Co., 308 Ill. 312; Melcher v. Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corp., 226 N.Y. 51; Massachusetts Protective Ass'n v. Daugerty, 87 Colo. 469; Beehler v. Gas Co., 121 Kan. Appellant urges that it is not relying upon a forfeiture, but is relying simply upon a ......
  • Walker to Use of Foristel v. American Auto. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • April 3, 1934
    ... ... Corp., 226 N.Y. 51, 123 N.E. 81; Massachusetts ... Protective Ass'n v. Daugherty, 87 Colo. 469, 288 P ... ...
  • Amica Life Ins. Co. v. Wertz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Colorado
    • October 19, 2018
    ...in legal contemplation, was substituted for the void provision and became binding upon the parties."); Mass. Protective Ass'n v. Daugherty , 87 Colo. 469, 288 P. 888, 889 (1930) ("any provision in a policy attempting to relieve an insurer from liability in case of suicide is a nullity [if c......
  • Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Baldridge
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Tenth Circuit
    • April 5, 1934
    ...P. 728; Officer v. London Guarantee & Accident Co., 74 Colo. 217, 220 P. 499; Id., 78 Colo. 441, 242 P. 989; Massachusetts Protective Ass'n v. Daugherty, 87 Colo. 469, 288 P. 888; Modern Brotherhood v. Lock, 22 Colo. App. 409, 125 P. 556. In some cases cited the Colorado Supreme Court said ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • GENERAL
    • United States
    • Colorado Bar Association The Green Book 2022 Tab 3: Miscellaneous Statutes and Rules
    • Invalid date
    ...insurance policy attempting to relieve the insurer from liability in case of suicide is a nullity. Mass. Protective Ass'n v. Daugherty, 87 Colo. 469, 288 P. 888 (1930). Furthermore, it is not merely procedural; it is substantive. McCowan v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 116 Colo. 78, 179 ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT