Meyers v. State Farm Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 32542,32542 |
| Citation | 416 S.W.2d 10 |
| Parties | Hope L. MEYERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Mogab & Hughes, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Evans & Dixon, John C. Shepherd, Paul V. Gilbert, St. Louis, for defendant-respondent.
This is an action by plaintiff, a widow, on a life insurance policy. A jury trial was waived. Plaintiff appeals from a judgment in favor of defendant.
The primary question for determination is: What was the effective date of the policy? Plaintiff contends it was April 9, 1963, the date of the delivery of the policy to insured. Defendant contends it was March 28, 1963, the 'policy date.' The trial court found March 28, 1963 as the effective date of the policy and found premiums were due on the 28th day of each month.
The defendant, State Farm Life Insurance Company, issued its policy of insurance dated March 28, 1963, insuring the life of John M. Meyers. In this policy plaintiff, Hope L. Meyers, is stated as the beneficiary of the death benefit, which is $10,000. The insured, John M. Meyers, was killed on May 24, 1964. Plaintiff contends that the aforesaid policy of insurance was in full force and effect on that date. Defendant contends that the policy lapsed prior thereto for non-payment of premium.
Defendant's agent, R. G. 'Roy' Sippel, was produced as a witness by plaintiff. On or about March 20, 1963, insured and his wife called at the office of Sippel, agent for the defendant. Insured told Sippel that he had permitted a policy he had with another company to lapse and for that reason he was interested in obtaining insurance. In the course of discussing the application for the insurance, insured said to Sippel, '* * * 'Roy, I'll take this application, but I don't have the money tonight and I'll pay you in about two weeks. '' Sippel said that he advanced the initial premium of $17.80 and in the course of his testimony said, 'Now, this was the understanding between Meyers and I.' Attached to the application was a Conditional Binding Receipt which Sippel tore off and in his testimony stated that the original application showed that a Binding Receipt was issued with regard to this particular policy. Sippel said, when the application was sent in to the defendant company he sent his check to cover the payment of the first premium of $17.80 which represented the first monthly premium. Other parts of this witness' testimony will be stated later.
We now recite pertinent parts of the application. Under the portion of the application designated 'Agent's Statement' appear the following questions and answers:
The application showed that it was received in the office of defendant company on March 25, 1963. The application was dated March 20, 1963. Other pertinent parts of the application are as follows: (On Page One)
(Emphasis ours.)
Under question 7, page 1 is the following:
The pertinent parts of the policy are as follows:
'The insurance provided by this policy, beginning on the Policy Date, is granted in consideration of the application and of the payment of premiums of Sixteen and 50/100 Dollars on the 28th day of each month in each policy year during the lifetime of the insured, the first such payment being due on the Folicy Date.
'In witness whereof, the State Farm Life Insurance Company, at its Home Office in Bloomington, Illinois, has caused this policy to be executed on the Policy Date, March 28, 1963.'
In the General Section of the policy appears the following:
* * *
* * *'
The non-forfeiture section of the policy provides for extended term insurance if any premium or balance thereof remains unpaid at the end of the grace period after applying Credits to Avoid Lapse and Automatic Premium Loan and if a cash surrender value is available. The Table of Values in the policy show that no cash surrender or maximum loan value was available until the end of the third policy year. This policy had been in force only one year.
As indicated previously the basic premium due monthly was $16.50. In addition to the basic premium insured agreed to pay $1.30 monthly for the privilege of purchasing additional insurance on his life without evidence of insurability, subject to conditions in the policy which we need not recite. This made the total premium due monthly $17.80.
Referring again to the testimony given by Sippel in plaintiff's case, he said that the Conditional Binding Receipt was torn off of the original application and again said that the original application showed that a Binding Receipt was issued with regard to the policy. He admitted that he did not turn the Conditional Binding Receipt over to the insured because the insured did not pay him, stating, 'I advanced the money for him.' Approximately two weeks after the application was executed by the insured, Sippel, under date of April 2, 1963, wrote to the insured and his wife stating, 'There is due me the first monthly premium of $17.80' In this same connection plaintiff introduced in evidence Sippel's copy of an invoice, dated April 2, 1963, the original of which had accompanied the aforementioned communication of the same date, wherein it was shown that the first premium on the life insurance policy was due Sippel. This same invoice also showed that Sippel had advanced on March 25, 1963 a membership fee due on an automobile insurance policy. In the course of the re-direct examination of Sippel by plaintiff's counsel the following questions were asked and answers given:
'THE WITNESS: The company issues the policy.
The insured picked up the policy in Sippel's office on April 9, 1963. That is the date it was delivered to the insured.
Plaintiff, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macalco, Inc. v. Gulf Ins. Co.
... ... See State ex rel. Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Bland, 353 Mo. 956, 963, 185 .2d 654, 656(3) (1945); Jordan v. United Equitable Life Ins. Co., 486 S.W.2d 664, 666-667(6-8) (Mo.App.1972); Adams v. Covenant ... State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 457 S.W.2d 823, 826 (Mo.App.1970); ... is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case." Meyers v. State Farm Life Insurance Co., 416 S.W.2d 10, 16(4-6) (Mo.App.1967) ... ...
-
Schroeder v. Horack, 60828
...be the agent for the insured, although as to the procuring of the insurance he also represents the company." Meyers v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 416 S.W.2d 10, 16 (Mo.App.1967). "(T)he policy gave insured the absolute right to cancel at any time by either of two methods: (1) by surrendering......
-
Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
...upon the intention of the parties, which is to be determined from the facts and circumstances of the case." Meyers v. State Farm Life Ins. Co. (Mo.App.1967), 416 S.W.2d 10, 16. Thus, this Court must examine evidence of the relationship between Goodyear and A&A regarding how notice of occurr......
-
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. the Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
... ... Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Ins ... Co. of Pa ... (C.A.6, 1997), 105 F.3d 258, 263 ... grounds by State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Johnson ... (Del.1974), ... facts and circumstances of the case." Meyers v ... State Farm Life Ins. Co ... (Mo.App.1967), 416 ... ...
-
CHAPTER § 5.10 When a Claim Arises: Role of Brokers in Claim Management
...2017); Archer Daniels Midland Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 243 F.3d 369, 372 (7th Cir. 2001).[254] Meyers v. State Farm Life Ins. Co., 416 S.W.2d 10, 16 (Mo. App. 1967).[255] GlobalNet Financial.Com, Inc. v. Frank Crystal & Co., 449 F.3d 377, 386 (2d Cir. 2006); Am. Bldg. Supply Corp. v. ......