McClain v. Reliance Life Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa.

• Decision Date: 08 June 1929
• Docket Number: 12675.
• Citation: McClain v. Reliance Life Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, Pa., 148 S.E. 478, 150 S.C. 459 (S.C. 1929)
• Parties: McCLAIN v. RELIANCE LIFE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

148 S.E. 478

150 S.C. 459

McCLAIN v. RELIANCE LIFE INS. CO. OF PITTSBURGH, PA.

No. 12675.

Supreme Court of South Carolina

June 8, 1929

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Aiken County; T. J Mauldin, Judge.

Action by Gary T. McClain against the Reliance Life Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Following are the complaint, answer, and exceptions:

Complaint.

"The plaintiff above-named, complaining of the defendant above-named, respectfully shows unto the Court:

"First That at the times hereinafter mentioned the defendant was a corporation chartered and organized under the laws of a State other than South Carolina, licensed and authorized to carry on the business in South Carolina of selling and delivering life, health, and accident insurance in this State, and collecting the premiums or charges therefor.

"Second: That at said times the plaintiff was, and still is, a resident and citizen of Aiken County, South Carolina.

"Third: That at the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiff was, and still is, a rural mail carrier on a route out of Jackson, Aiken County, South Carolina; and engaged in other lines of business.

"Fourth: That in the year of 1925, plaintiff engaged to receive a policy of insurance from the defendant; and the agent of the defendant, authorized to act in the premises, delivered to the plaintiff a policy; but not the kind of insurance desired or applied for by the plaintiff, and an effort on his part to exchange said policy for the kind applied for was duly made; and during the negotiations to make the change, the agent and representative acting for the defendant, within the scope of his employment and agency, pretended to say that he had paid the premium to the company personally, and that he had furnished to plaintiff the kind of insurance applied for by him; but plaintiff insisted that he had not received the insurance applied for, and inquired if any money had been paid to the defendant, and the status of his insurance generally.

"Fifth: That meanwhile on or about October 24, 1925, the defendant, acting through its agent and representative, the latter having general and full power to act for the defendant in the premises, issued, circulated, and published, of and concerning the plaintiff, the following false, malicious, defamatory, and libelous language, to wit:

"'Reliance Life Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania,

"'James H. Reed, President.

"'Augusta, Ga., Oct. 24, 1925.

"'Re: Gary T. McClain

"'Mr. C. C. Chance, Postmaster, Jackson, S. C.--Dear Sir: First I wish to thank you for your assistance and at the same time apologize for the necessity of bothering you with this matter.

"'With reference to the indebtedness of the above please allow me to explain. During the month of June of this year I called on Mr. McClain for the purpose of offering him our service, which includes Life Insurance and Accident and Health Coverage. Mr. McClain stated that he was in need of this service and agreed to apply for a policy which would provide to pay so much cash immediately at death and then so much each month for ten years to Mrs. McClain and the children provided for in the event of his death. The contract also provided protection for accident or sickness. Mr. McClain was examined for this insurance and gave me his 60-day note for the quarterly premium

of $74.85 which he assured me would be paid when due.

"'The policy came in and was delivered to Mr. McClain. When the note came due I was unable to get any response from Mr. McClain so made a trip to see him and succeeded in talking to him on the road near Ellenton, at which time he informed me that he had been expecting some money for road work and that he would pay me the amount due when this money was received. At this time I particularly asked him about the policy because if there had been any unsatisfactory conditions in connection with same I could have taken up the policy and canceled it at minor loss to myself, however, he told me positively that he liked the policy and wanted it, and that if I could wait until Sept. 5th he felt sure that he could pay the amount at that time. I agreed to this further extension which made it necessary for me to pay to my company the premium so that this protection would remain in force.

"'When Sept. 5th arrived I made several efforts to collect the amount, and after many broken promises on the part of Mr. McClain I again made special trip to Jackson to see him during the latter part of September, and it was then that he stated that he thought the policy was too much for him to carry at this time, and asked if I could have it reduced in amount. I agreed to do so and it was then that he gave me his check for $37.85 representing one-half the original note and as I explained to him would not quite cover the actual money I had expended in his behalf by keeping this protection in force for him.

"'It is indeed unpleasant for me to have to cause anyone trouble, but Mr. McClain has made me promise after promise, all to be broken, and I must say that I have never had dealings with a person who seemed to care so little for his word or obligations. His letter is a false representation of the facts and is the first time that he has intimated that he was not entirely satisfied and pleased with the policy.

"'I have been in the Life Insurance many years, and have hundreds of policy holders, and this is the first time that I have ever been accused of misrepresentation and I cannot allow these statements to go unrefuted. I do contend that Mr. McClain is indebted to me for $74.85 plus interest, representing protection that he has already had from my company and it is my purpose to pursue any means within my power to collect what is justly due me.

"'For Mr. McClain's benefit I will say that if he will arrange at once to pay me $37.85 which is represented by the check of Oct. 5th, and which is just about the amount of money that I have expended in his behalf, I will let the balance drop and will return to him his check, note and other papers bearing his signature.

"'Again thanking you, I am,

"'Yours very truly,

"[Signed] Anderson Sibley,

"'S/P General Agent.'

"Sixth: That the issuance, circulation and publication of the above-described language concerning the plaintiff, not only was false and defamatory, as aforesaid; but was the beginning of a well-defined plan to injure this plaintiff by the publication of injurious matter to the sendee of said letter and to others, amongst such persons being a representative of the Credit Men's Association of the community where plaintiff transacted a large part of his business; said letter, or the contents thereof, having been published by the defendant to said representative and to others with such intent.

"Seventh: That the issuance, circulation and publication of such language concerning the plaintiff charged and meant to charge (and it was so understood by those reading and hearing the same) the plaintiff with dishonesty in dealings and transactions with the defendant, and that plaintiff is utterly unworthy of belief, and is gifted to falsehood and misrepresentation. That said charges and language used concerning plaintiff's honesty and integrity and concerning the transaction, are false, malicious, defamatory and libelous, and hold the plaintiff up to scorn, contempt, ridicule, hatred, and derision, and reflected upon and injured the business, the good name, reputation, and character of the plaintiff to his great damage.

"Eighth: That the aforesaid language was not only injurious upon its face, but it had the effect (and the defendant was fully aware at the time it issued, circulated and published the same that such would be the consequence) of injuring plaintiff as aforesaid, and of making some of this defendant's creditors bear down upon him, and of making accommodations of a financial nature difficult for him to secure, and of causing him great loss in the operation of his private business affairs, of all of which defendant, its agents and representatives, had full knowledge at the time, all to the plaintiff's great damage in the sum of two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine ($2,999.00) dollars.

"Wherefore: Plaintiff demands judgment against defendant for the sum of two thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine ($2,999.00) dollars, and the costs of this action."

Answer.

"For a First Defense

"1. This defendant admits that it is a corporation under the laws of the State of Pennsylvania licensed by the Insurance Department of South Carolina to engage in business in this State and was such at the times mentioned in the complaint.

"2. Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the allegations of the second and third paragraphs of complaint.

"3. Denies each and every other allegation in said complaint contained.

" For a Second Defense

"That Anderson Sibley is, and at the times set forth in the complaint was, defendant's agent, in the City of Augusta, Georgia, and vicinity, to solicit applications for insurance on the lives of individuals, with or without accident and health features, all subject to approval in writing by this defendant, but for no other purpose whatsoever; and this defendant further alleges that no statements, written or oral against plaintiff or his character have ever been made by it, or on its behalf or by any one with its authority and approval.

"For a Third Defense

"That the letter set forth in the complaint was written by Anderson C. Sibley in self-defense and without malicious intent to vindicate himself and his own business and interests and as an explanation and denial of charges made against...