McPike v. Supreme Ruling of the Fraternal Mystic Circle

• Decision Date: 02 February 1915
• Citation: 173 S.W. 71,187 Mo.App. 679
• Parties: AURELIA M. McPIKE, Respondent, v. SUPREME RULING OF THE FRATERNAL MYSTIC CIRCLE, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

173 S.W. 71

187 Mo.App. 679

AURELIA M. McPIKE, Respondent, v. SUPREME RULING OF THE FRATERNAL MYSTIC CIRCLE, Appellant

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

February 2, 1915

Appeal from Pike Circuit Court.--Hon. B. H. Dyer, Judge.

Judgment affirmed.

R. L Motley for appellant.

(1) The crucial point or question presented on this appeal for determination is, the proper construction to be given the policy or certificate of insurance sued on, and the consequent liability of defendant thereunder by virtue of its certificate of assumption. In settling this question, the application of the insured, the constitution and by-laws of the Safety Fund Insurance Society, which are made a part of the policy, and the policy must be considered together, as each form an essential element of the contract of insurance. Laker v. The Royal Fraternal Union, 95 Mo.App. 353; Richmond v. Supreme Lodge O. of M. P., 100 Mo.App 19; Pearson v. Knight Templars and Masons Indemnity Co., 114 Mo.App. 283; Lewine v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 122 Mo.App. 554; Claudy v. Royal League, 168 S.W. 593. (2) The nature and corporate character of the society issuing the policy sued on is determined by its constitution and by-laws, and an analysis of its constitution and by-laws will enable the court to determine that it is a fraternal beneficiary association, and the business done by it was fraternal beneficiary insurance and not old line or insurance on the assessment plan. Its constitution provided for a lodge system with ritualistic form of work and a representative form of government, and organized for the benefit of its members and their beneficiaries and not for profit. Westerman v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 196 Mo 670; Claudy v. Royal League, 168 S.W. 594; Tice v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 123 Mo.App. 85; State ex rel. Supreme Lodge K. of P. v. Vandiver, 213 Mo. 187.

Hostetter & Haley for respondent.

(1) Courts will construe policies of insurance most strongly against the insurer; this rule is rigidly applied as to the amount of indemnity to be paid upon the happening of the contingencies insured against, and all doubtful language and ambiguous provisions relating thereto will be resolved against the company and in favor of the insured. Stix v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 175 Mo.App. 171; Birtlenham v. Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World, 167 S.W. 590; Matthews v. Modern Woodmen, 236 Mo. 326; Renn v. Supreme Lodge K. of P., 83 Mo.App. 442; Connecticut Fire Ins. Co. v. Jeary, 51 L.R.A. 698; Mitchel v. Accident Co., 179 Mo.App. 1; La Force v. Williams Ins. Co., 43 Mo.App. 518, 530; Hoffman v. Accident Indemnity Co., 56 Mo.App. 301; Renshaw v. Mo. State Mut. F. & M. Ins. Co., 103 Mo. 595; Realty Co. v. Insurance Co., 179 Mo.App. 138. (2) A foreign association must prove that at the time its policy in controversy was issued, it was authorized to do business in this State as a fraternal beneficiary society, in order to escape being governed by the provisions relating to regular or old line insurance. Gruwell v. Knights & Ladies of Security, 126 Mo.App. 496; Conner v. Association, 171 Mo.App. 364; Brassfield v. Woodman, 88 Mo.App. 208; Brassfield v. Knights of Maccabees, 92 Mo.App. 102; Huff v. Woodmen, 85 Mo.App. 96; McDermott v. Woodmen, 97 Mo.App. 636; Keeton v. National Union, 178 Mo.App. 301; Lowenstein v. Old Colony Life Ins. Co., 166 S.W. 889. (3) The character of a company and its liability are determined, not by its name, nor by what it pretends to be, but by the policy in question. Toomey v. Knights of Pythias, 147 Mo. 129; Jacobs v. Life Assn., 146 Mo. 523; Folkens v. Ins. Co., 98 Mo.App. 480; Aloe v. Fidelity Mut. Life Assn., 164 Mo. 675; Trenton v. Humel, 134 Mo.App. 595; State ex rel. v. Vandiver, 213 Mo. 187.

NORTONI, J. Reynolds, P. J., and Allen, J., concur.

OPINION

NORTONI, J.

--This is a suit on a policy of life insurance. Plaintiff recovered and defendant prosecutes the appeal.

A jury was waived and the cause tried before the court. No instructions were asked or given, and the question for consideration relates to the construction of the policy and the character of insurance involved. If the policy is a mutual benefit certificate under our law, then plaintiff is entitled to recover $ 731.70 only, in accordance with the constitution and by-laws of the company; while, on the other hand, if it is to be treated as an old line life insurance policy, the recovery should be $ 2000, for such is the amount specified in the face of the policy. The court found the policy to be an old line insurance contract and gave judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $ 2000 and interest thereon.

Plaintiff's brother, Alexander H. Miller, a number of years ago affiliated with the Home Forum Benefit Order and insured his life in her favor under certificate No. 60259 for a sum not exceeding $ 2000, on which he paid a monthly assessment of $ 1.20. After a time, it seems this order became insolvent and the Safety Fund Insurance Society of New York took over its business as through a reinsurance. On April 1, 1901, the insured made his application in writing to the Safety Fund Insurance Society, whereby he surrendered his certificate in the Home Forum Benefit Order and insured in the Safety Fund Insurance Society. From the constitution and by-laws of the latter society in evidence, it appears that it was a New York corporation organized to conduct the business of mutual benefit insurance. Among other things, its constitution and by-laws provide for a representative form of government, a lodge system, and ritualistic work, but the constitution in one place refers to profits as if it was in the purview of the society to accumulate such. However, the main structure of the society portrays its fraternal character, but the certificates or policies issued by it inculcate some features of old line insurance as well. It is with respect to the latter we are concerned here, for it is said that fraternal insurance societies may not issue nonforfeiture and extended insurance contracts in this State, whatever they may do elsewhere.

The insured, Alexander H. Miller, having accepted a certificate of date April 1, 1901 of the Safety Fund Insurance Society in lieu of that formerly held in the Home Forum Benefit Order, he paid all of the assessments thereon at the rate of $ 1.20 per month identically as before until the time of his death. But in the interim, the Safety Fund Insurance Society reinsured its business and quit the field--that is to say, on October 20, 1902, the American Guild of Richmond, Virginia, by its certificate in due form issued to and accepted by the insured Miller, assumed the obligation vouchsafed in the Safety Fund Insurance Society certificate held by him. Presently the American Guild of Richmond, Virginia, likewise reinsured its business with this defendant, the Supreme Ruling of the Fraternal Mystic Circle, on May 27, 1907. By this arrangement and under competent contract to that effect, defendant assumed the obligation vouchsafed in the certificate, No. 34304, issued by the Safety Fund Insurance Society on the life of Alexander H. Miller in favor of plaintiff, and such is the contract in judgment.

The first section of the certificate of insurance referred to and that which nominates the amount of the insurance reciting the principal features of the undertaking is as follows:

"SAFETY FUND INSURANCE SOCIETY, SYRACUSE, N. Y. No. 34304.

DOES HEREBY AGREE WITH Alexander H. Miller of Bowling Green in the State of Missouri, hereinafter called the insured, that for and in consideration of the surrender and cancellation of the Certificate of Insurance referred to in the below Schedule A and the other considerations named herein, and the further...