Mates v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 June 1944 |
| Citation | 316 Mass. 303,55 N.E.2d 770 |
| Parties | MATES v. PENN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; Fosdick, Judge.
Action of contract to recover an unpaid balance of the cash surrender value of an endowment life policy by Benjamin P. Mates against Penn Mutual Life Insurance Co. To review a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings exceptions.
Exceptions overruled.
Before FIELD, C. J., and LUMMUS, QUA, DOLAN, RONAN, WILKINS, and SPALDING, JJ.
Edward M. Dangel and L. E. Sherry, both of Boston, for plaintiff.
R. C. Evarts, of Boston, for defendant.
The plaintiff, on March 14, 1941, brought this action of contract to recover an unpaid balance of the cash surrender value of a fifteen-year endowment life insurance policy issued on February 24, 1939, upon the payment of a single premium of $10,000. The amount of the policy was $13,956. The defense is an equitable one, G.L.(Ter.Ed.) c. 231, § 35, that the statement in the policy of the amount of cash surrender value applicable to the case was inserted by a mistake which entitled the defendant to be absolutely and unconditionally relieved against the plaintiff's claim.
When surrendered, the policy had run two full years. The policy provided that An actuary was allowed to testify over the plaintiff's objection and exception, that the full reserve and the cash surrender value of the policy, computed on such basis, at the end of the second year of the life of the policy, would be $690.78 for every $1,000 of insurance.
The policy contained a typewritten table which gave the cash surrender value for every $1,000 of insurance at the end of different years of the life of the policy. The cash surrender value naturally increased as the policy became older. At the end of the first year that value was stated as $658.28, and at the end of the third year $718.92, and thence increased progressively. But the cash surrender value at the end of the second year was given as $890.78. It was not until the end of the eleventh year that so high a cash surrender value again appeared in the table.
In other words, the value at the end of the second year, stated in the table, is wholly out of accord with all the other values given in the table. A mistake is evident on the face of the policy. If the plaintiff can recover the value stated in the table, he will get the full premium back with interest and more than a $1,000 clear profit, besides being insured against death for two years and sharing in possible dividends. Obviously an insurance company could not make a practice of entering into such contracts, and survive.
The judge found that the correct cash surrender value at the end of two years was $690.78 for every $1,000 of insurance, just $200 less than the value stated in the table. That amount, $690.78, would have made the table consistent in its progressive increases in value. The judge inferred that the error was due to the pressing of the wrong key of a typewriter. He found, moreover, that the plaintiff, before the policy was issued, examined a table in which the values were correctly stated, and knew that the true value at the end of the second year was $690.78, and not $890.78. Furthermore, there was evidence that a few days after the policy was issued the plaintiff discovered the error, and spoke of it to the defendant's agent, who advised him to return the policy for correction. The plaintiff agreed to do so, but did not, and the defendant's agent forgot about the error. There is nothing in the record to show that the judge did not credit that evidence.
Upon the surrender of the policy, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Polaroid Corp. v. Travelers Indem. Co.
...proof of intent in these circumstances. Id. Insurance policies may be reformed on the same principles. See Mates v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 316 Mass. 303, 306, 55 N.E.2d 770 (1944); Fireman's Fund Ins. Co. v. Shapiro, In order to prevail on its motion for summary judgment, Lexington had ......
-
De Vincent Ford Sales, Inc. v. First Mass. Corp.
...The words 'of the parties' import sufficiently the mutual character of the mistake necessary for relief. Mates v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 316 Mass. 303, 306, 55 N.E.2d 770. Century Plastic Corp. v. Tupper Corp., 333 Mass. 531, 533, 131 N.E.2d 740. See Dzuris v. Pierce, 216 Mass. 132, 135......
-
Ward v. Ward
...or by mutual mistake, but also by a mistake of one party ... which is known to the other party.... See Mates v. Penn. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 316 Mass. 303, 306, 55 N.E.2d 770 (1944); Wareham Sav. Bank v. Partridge, 317 Mass. 83, 84, 56 N.E.2d 867 (1944). Under the rule stated in Restatement ......
-
Wareham Sav. Bank v. Partridge
...a mutual mistake on her part and that of the plaintiff, or a mistake on the part of the plaintiff known to her (Mates v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 316 Mass. 303, 55 N.E.2d 770)-for the purposes of this case it being immaterial which-a mortgage taken by the plaintiff upon part of the tract ow......