Mills v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 23 September 1936 |
| Docket Number | 90. |
| Citation | 187 S.E. 581,210 N.C. 439 |
| Parties | MILLS et al. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; McElroy, Judge.
Action by Isaac Mills and others against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.
New trial.
Where disability contracts attached to life policy had become incontestable at time of insured's alleged total permanent disability, insurer held not precluded from showing that insured's alleged total and permanent disability was not result of bodily injury or disease occurring, or originating, after issuance of policies, as required for recovery under disability contracts.
Civil action to recover on total and permanent disability clauses in supplemental contracts attached to and made parts of two life insurance policies.
Upon the payment of the first annual premiums, the defendant, on June 24, 1925, issued to the plaintiff two $5,000 life insurance policies with riders or supplemental contracts attached, each providing for disability benefits in case of total and permanent disability, "as a result of bodily injury or disease occurring and originating after the issuance of said policy."
On the face of each policy is an incontestable clause in the following language:
Each rider or supplemental contract contains the following "The provision of the said Policy as to incontestability shall apply hereto, but shall not preclude the Company from requiring as a condition to recovery hereunder, due proof of such total and permanent disability as entitles him to the benefits hereof."
During the summer of 1927, plaintiff made claim for total and permanent disability benefits under the policies above mentioned, which was allowed by the defendant up to and including the month of August, 1932, when defendant notified plaintiff that no further payments would be made contending that proof of claim was based upon false and fraudulent statements, which defendant had relied upon to its injury.
This suit was instituted September 15, 1934, to recover alleged disability benefits accruing since August, 1932, under the supplemental contracts attached to the policies in suit.
Denial of liability interposed by the defendant upon the ground that plaintiff's disability was not the result of bodily injury or disease "occurring and originating after the issuance of said policies"; and counterclaim pleaded for amount of benefits already paid.
The defendant was not allowed to show its alleged defense and counterclaim because of the incontestable clauses contained in the policies. Exception.
Verdict and judgment for plaintiff, from which defendant appeals assigning errors.
Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton, of Asheville, for appellant.
Joseph A. Patla and Johnston & Horner, all of Asheville, for appellees.
Do the incontestable clauses in the policies in suit preclude the defendant from showing that plaintiff's original claim for disability benefits was grounded on false and fraudulent statements, as alleged, and that a continuation of said claim-the gravamen of plaintiff's present complaint-does not fall within the terms of the supplemental agreements? This calls for an analysis and construction of the contracts.
With respect to the original policies, there are numerous decisions to the effect that an incontestable clause cuts off all defenses except those allowed...
To continue reading
Request your trial