Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Humphrey

• Decision Date: 03 April 1934
• Citation: 70 S.W.2d 361
• Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. HUMPHREY.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

Page 361

70 S.W.2d 361

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. HUMPHREY.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

April 3, 1934.

Error to Circuit Court, Hamilton County; L. D. Miller, Judge.

Action by Harold Humphrey against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. A judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and defendant brings certiorari.

Reversed, and suit dismissed.

Thomas, Thomas & Folts, of Chattanooga, for plaintiff in error.

Rankin, Frazier & Roberts, of Chattanooga, for defendant in error.

COOK, Justice.

The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, referred to as insurer, issued a policy insuring Harold Humphrey, referred to as the insured, against accident resulting in disability continuously and wholly disabling him from performing any kind of duty pertaining to the occupation in which he was engaged at the time of the accident. The policy provided for payment of weekly benefits for the period of the disability. The insured was injured December 24, 1929, by an automobile accident in Florida. Insurer paid the weekly benefits until December 18, 1930, when a settlement was made and a receipt and release executed by the insured as follows:

"Received from the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company the sum of $262.50 to me in hand paid, which I voluntarily accept as in full and final settlement of any and all claims under accident policy #459892-AH issued to me October 21, 1929, which I now have or might hereinafter have against the said company by reason of any loss or disability arising out of bodily injury sustained on or about December 24, 1929, or at any time prior to the present date, and in consideration of the amount so paid I for myself and my heirs, executors and assignees, hereby forever release the said company from any and all further claim on account of any loss sustained or any disability heretofore sustained or which I may hereinafter sustain by reason of the injury aforesaid or any complication arising from it. I make this settlement of my own free will in consideration of receiving from said company a sum of money considerably in excess of any amount due me from said company at the date hereof.

                                     "H. M. Humphrey."
                

February 29, 1932, without referring to the settlement and release, the insured sued on the policy, alleging disability, and that the insurer had refused to pay the weekly benefits in arrears. The insurer pleaded accord and satisfaction grounded upon the receipt and release of December 18, 1930. By replication, the insured said that the disability existed and continued, that the release was not supported by a consideration and was executed by mutual mistake of fact. The insurer joined issue on the replication, and upon trial of the cause the jury found for the insured and that he was entitled to recover $25 a week from the date of the accident, December 24, 1929, until commencement of the suit February 29, 1932, less $1,412.50, including the $262.50 tendered, which the jury found "plaintiff was entitled to." Judgment was accordingly entered and on appeal affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The cause is here upon certiorari to the Court of Appeals.

Through the assignments of error it is insisted that the Court of Appeals erred (1) in declaring that under section 10329 of the Code, there being no demurrer to the declaration, the circuit court could retain jurisdiction and set aside the contract for mutual mistake of fact.

(2) In refusing to sustain the insurer's defense of laches.

(3) In holding that the insured could avoid settlement for the alleged mutual mistake, not of a fact existent when the settlement was made, but a mistaken opinion predicated upon known facts as to the probable duration of the disability.

(4) For refusing to reverse the judgment of the trial court upon the undisputed facts showing that the insured made the settlement with the insurer with knowledge of existing facts.

The circuit court was without jurisdiction to relieve against mutual mistake of fact. The power to do that is intrusted to the courts of chancery. But under...