Mississippi Ben. Ass'n v. Majure

• Decision Date: 27 January 1947
• Docket Number: 36312.
• Citation: 201 Miss. 183,29 So.2d 110
• Parties: MISSISSIPPI BEN. ASS'N v. MAJURE.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

29 So.2d 110

201 Miss. 183

MISSISSIPPI BEN. ASS'N v. MAJURE.

No. 36312.

Supreme Court of Mississippi

January 27, 1947

Henry L. Rodgers, of Louisville, for appellant.

Livingston & Fair, of Louisville, for appellee.

L. A SMITH, Sr., Justice.

This action originated in the court of a justice of the peace whence appellant here appealed to the Circuit Court of Winston County, and from an adverse judgment there, it appealed here.

A widowed mother obtained a burial insurance policy from appellant on December 15, 1936 in consideration of the application 'and the payment of $1.00 by the head of the family as membership fee and further payments of $1.00 on the 15th day of each month hereafter,' (for which) 'the Mississippi Benefit Association, upon receipt of notice of the death of any of the following persons residing together as one family', naming them, contracted to furnish a funeral at a cost not exceeding $150. Among the children listed was Nyles Majure, agreed to be the same person as Gordon Niles Majure, deceased, who was twenty years of age at the time of his death, and unmarried.

The record contains an agreed statement of facts to the effect that the above statements are true, and, in addition, that on September 18, 1944, Niles Majure lost his life in the country of Holland in active combat, as a soldier of the United States, from enemy action; that he was drafted into the army from Winston County, Mississippi, at a time when he was living and residing with his mother and the other members of the family mentioned in the policy as one family; that he removed from Mississippi under military orders; that his death did not occur 'in any state of the United States' but that he died in the country of Holland. Notice of the death of the said Niles Majure was given appellant, and it was requested to make the payment of $150 in cash. It was also agreed that the appellant association had no representative in Holland and carried on no business there. There were other matters in the agreed statement of facts of which we need take no notice because of the agreed issues before us.

Both parties agreed that the questions involved were: 'Whether or not Niles Majure was residing together as a member of the family of Mrs. Jeffie Majure and the other members mentioned in the policy at the time of his death'; and (2) 'whether or not the phrase 'removal to another state' limited the policy to mean 'a state of the United States.''

The policy contained this special provision, which is pertinent here: 'Should the insured hereunder remove to another state and should the Association be not represented there then this contract if in full force and effect, will become a 'Cash Policy' in lieu of the funeral expenses for '100 per cent' of the amount applicable shown above.'

The policy itself offers no definition of 'state'; contains no specific limitation to the United States of America or the members thereof; and does not expressly provide that death in a foreign country is not covered by the policy. The first inquiry is, what does the language, 'remove to another state', mean.

Appellant cites for our consideration United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wilson, 184 Miss. 823, 185 So. 802, where we held that although policies are to be construed strongly against insurer, construction must be reasonable, and not a strained or unjust interpretation of the contract. That is certainly the law. In the construction of this policy, which did not have its meaning made clear when its text was prepared, judicial clarification is necessary. This being true, in our judgment, we must follow another well-recognized rule governing ambiguous insurance contracts, as announced in Georgia Casualty Company v. Cotton Mills Products Co., 159 Miss. 396, 132 So. 73, 75, 'where the terms of an insurance contract are ambiguous or doubtful, the contract is to be construed most favorably to the insured, and against the insurer.' What is a 'state'? In the Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L.Ed. 25, the United States Supreme Court, in dealing with a controversy between the Cherokee Indians and the State of Georgia, construing the term 'foreign state' in the Federal Constitution, held the Cherokees to be a 'state'. According to a headnote, 'They have been uniformly treated as a state since the settlement of our country. The numerous treaties made with them by the United States recognize them as a people capable of maintaining the relations of peace and war, and of being responsible in their political character for any violation of their engagements, for any aggression committed on the citizens of the United States by any individuals of their community.' In O'Connor v. State, Tex.Civ.App., 71 S.W. 409, 410, it is said that 'a state is 'a political community, organized under a distinct government, recognized and conformed to by the people as supreme; a commonwealth; a nation.''

This Court, in a case involving the issue, whether Mississippi as one of the Confedecate States was identical with Mississippi as one of the United...