McClain v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | 28868. |
| Citation | 16 S.E.2d 173,65 Ga.App. 355 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | McCLAIN v. PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. |
Where group life policy expired for nonpayment of premium before death of insured employee according to its terms, fact that employee's illness and incapacity to work and earn wages from which premium could be deducted were compensable did not serve to keep policy in force on theory that compensation to which employee might be entitled would be in effect funds due employee from which employer should pay premium.
Stanford Arnold, of Newnan, for plaintiff in error.
R O. Jones and Wm. Y. Atkinson, both of Newnan, for defendant in error.
This case is in this court on exception to the sustaining of a general demurrer to the petition as amended. The facts alleged were substantially as follows: Mrs. Julia McClain filed suit against the Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company to recover on a certificate of employer group insurance, in which she was named the beneficiary, and which was issued by the company, on September 18, 1939 insuring the life of her son, Eddie McClain. Her son, at the time the certificate was issued to him, was an employee of the Newnan Cotton Mills, and the certificate was issued to him as such employee. He died on April 21, 1940. On May 4 the company was duly notified of his death and a claim was made for the amount of insurance provided for in the certificate. Payment of the claim was refused on the ground that the policy was not in force at the time of the death of the insured because of nonpayment of the premium provided for in the certificate.
The certificate provided that the company "certifies" that the insured "under group policy No. 4077, with its supplements, issued to Newnan Cotton Mills (hereinafter called the employer), covering its employees, is entitled to benefits in accordance with the terms, conditions and limitations thereof, to the extent only as set out therein and conditioned upon the payment of the premiums required therefor when due; ***" that "upon receipt of satisfactory proof of the death of the employee *** while insured under the group policy and while the group policy is in full force, the company will pay the sum shown under section A *** to the beneficiary designated by the employee subject to the privileges and provisions of the group policy and its supplements," that "the insurance granted under the policy with respect to the employee shall not be in effect until the employee's premium has actually been paid, or charged against him *** on the payroll of the employer," that "the payment of premium for each period as stated in the application herefor shall apply only to the insurance period in which such payment is made," that "no claim during any period for which its respective premium has not been actually paid in full or charged against the employee on the payroll by the employer and covered by wages earned and due, shall be valid; ***" that "failure of the employer, or his representative, to deduct any of the premium payments shall be at the risk of the employee," and that "the insurance on any employee shall cease *** when active employment with the employer named herein is terminated, *** and the company, upon request, shall refund any unearned premium paid to cover any period beyond the date of such termination."
It was also alleged that the "master policy," issued to the employer "provided that payment of a premium of thirty-five *** cents per week would insure the employee in the a mount of five hundred *** dollars;" that this policy also provided that "all premiums under this policy are payable by the employer when due as stated in the application," that "the first premium payment *** will carry the insurance on such employee to the end of the calendar month (or week) in which the insurance is made effective," that "all subsequent premiums continue the insurance in force from the first of each calendar month (or week) for the period of a month (or week), or that proportionate part of the month (or week) which the premium paid represents."
It was further alleged that the insured became ill on January 26 1940, and that all...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rivers v. State Capital Life Ins. Co.
...159 Pa.Super. 318, 48 A.2d 145; Jensen v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 266 Wis. 595, 64 N. W.2d 183; McClain v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 65 Ga.App. 355, 16 S. E.2d 173; 45 C.J.S., Insurance, § 614, p. There is no contention by plaintiff of any payment of premiums within the g......
-
Clements v. Continental Cas. Ins. Co.
...so provides. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Kohn, 103 Ga.App. 162, 118 S.E.2d 731 (1961); McClain v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 65 Ga. App. 355, 16 S.E.2d 173 (1941); Lloyd v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 50 Ga.App. 478, 178 S.E. 479 (1934). This general rule, however, does n......
- Griffin v. Taylor
- Wilkes v. Rankin-Whitten Realty Co.