Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hinkle
Decision Date | 28 April 1934 |
Citation | 74 S.W.2d 1082 |
Parties | MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. HINKLE. |
Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
Cox, Taylor & Epps, of Johnson City, and Harold D. Knight, of St. Louis, Mo., for Missouri State Life Ins. Co.
Divine, Guinn & Mitchell, of Johnson City, for Eureka Hinkle.
This action was brought by Eureka Hinkle, widow of Earl Hinkle, as beneficiary, upon a certificate issued to him while he was an employee of the American Glanzstoff Corporation, by the Missouri State Life Insurance Company, under a policy of group insurance which it had issued upon the employees of said corporation. Earl Hinkle died on January 7, 1931. His certificate was dated December 10, 1929. It provided that under and subject to the terms and conditions of a group policy of insurance No. G — 2592, issued and delivered to the American Glanzstoff Corporation, the employer, the Missouri State Life Insurance Company insured the life of Earl Hinkle for the sum of $1,100 payable to his wife, Eureka Hinkle, as beneficiary, "if death shall occur while an employee of the employer during the continuance of the insurance under this certificate." It further provided:
"The insurance provided by the said policy for the employee shall terminate at the expiration of the period for which premiums are last deducted by the employer from the pay of the employee, or remitted by the employee to the employer, unless the employee shall elect to continue the insurance in accordance with the conversion privilege given on the second page of this certificate."
The employment of Earl Hinkle was terminated on December 4, 1930, by discharge by the corporation.
On November 10, 1930, the sum of 60 cents was deducted from his wages and used to pay the premium on this insurance until December 10, 1930. No further payment of premiums was made.
The group or master policy also contained the provision that the insurance on any employee should cease at the expiration of the policy month for which premiums were last received by the company for such employee, except that if an employee were disabled, given leave of absence, or temporarily laid off, the employment need not be considered terminated unless the employer should so elect. This group policy also provided as follows:
This provision for days of grace is not expressly contained in the certificate.
The certificate issued to Earl Hinkle under this policy contained the following:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Adkins v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., (No. 9898)
...138 Misc. 710, 246 N. Y. S. 701; Young v. General American Life Ins. Co. (Ohio App.), 41 N. E. 2d 895; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hinkle, 18 Tenn. App. 228, 74 S. W. 2d 1082. The effect given to the conversion clause in the foregoing cases is sound in principle and leads to the correct......
-
Nick v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...So.2d 728; Clapp v. Sun Life, 163 S.W.2d 537; Kloidt v. Metropolitan, 16 A.2d 274; Lancaster v. Travelers, 189 S.E. 79; Missouri State Life v. Hinkle, 74 S.W.2d 1082; Equitable v. Yates, 288 Ky. 309, 156 S.W.2d Duvall v. Metropolitan, 82 N.H. 543, 136 A. 400; Colter v. Travelers, 270 Mass. ......
-
Poch v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States
... ... notice of any such change ... In ... Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 143 Pa.Super. 270, ... [*] two group policies were issued to the ... Soc. v. Green, 259 Ky. 773, 83 ... S.W.2d 478, and Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v ... Hinkle, 18 Tenn.App. 228, 74 S.W.2d 1082, ... ...
-
Juhl v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 77 S.W.2d 886; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 188 Ark. 154, 65 S.W.2d 25; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hinkle, 18 Tenn.App. 228, 74 S.W.2d 1082; English v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 300 Mass. 482, 15 N.E.2d 804; Szymanski v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. C......