Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Holt

• Decision Date: 12 December 1932
• Docket Number: No. 4-2782.,4-2782.
• Citation: 55 S.W.2d 788
• Parties: MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. et al. v. HOLT.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 788

55 S.W.2d 788

MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. et al. v. HOLT.

No. 4-2782.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

December 12, 1932.

Rehearing Denied January 16, 1933.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Arkansas County, Northern District; S. M. Bone, Judge on Exchange.

Suit by Edith Sutton Holt, guardian for R. E. Holt, against the Missouri State Life Insurance Company and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.

Modified and affirmed.

Allen May, of St. Louis, Mo., Carmichael & Hendricks and Rose, Hemingway, Cantrell & Loughborough, all of Little Rock, and Joseph Morrison and Ingram & Moher, all of Stuttgart, for appellants.

Meehan & Moncrief, of Stuttgart, for appellee.

MEHAFFY, J.

Mrs. Edith Sutton Holt, guardian, brought suit in the Arkansas circuit court against the Security Life Insurance Company of America and also brought suit against the Missouri State Life Insurance Company. The cases were consolidated by agreement, tried together, and there was a verdict and judgment against each of the appellants for the sum of $3,000, and to reverse said judgment the appellants prosecute this appeal.

The complaint alleged that Robert Earl Holt had been duly adjudged incompetent, of unsound mind, and mentally incapable of managing his affairs; that Edith S. Holt had been duly appointed as guardian for R. E. Holt by order of the probate court of Arkansas county. The complaint alleged that the defendant Security Life Insurance Company of America issued to R. E. Holt its policy of life and disability insurance, and that premiums thereon were paid to the 6th day of October, 1926.

While said policy was in force, the insured suffered a bodily injury, and while the premiums were being paid, and while the policy was in force, the said R. E. Holt became permanently and totally disabled. His permanent and total disability was both mental and physical. The policy provided that after receipt and approval, and due proof, that by reason of bodily injury or disease occurring while the policy was in full force, and showing that the insured has been for one year, and will be thereafter permanently and continuously prevented from engaging in any occupation whatever for remuneration and profit, the provision requiring the payment of premiums will be waived.

The policy also provided that the company would pay to the insured the amount of $100 upon the date of the approval of the proofs, and upon the same date of each month thereafter during the remainder of the endowment period, while the insured is disabled.

It was alleged that notice had been given to, and demand made of, the defendant Security Life Insurance Company of America, pursuant to the provisions of the contract, and that defendant had denied liability on the alleged ground that the insured failed to notify it of his total and permanent disability.

It was further alleged that at the time the insured became totally and permanently disabled, he was mentally incompetent, and incapable of managing his own affairs; that there was now due and matured upon the policy an unpaid balance of $3,000.

An amendment was filed to the complaint alleging that R. E. Holt suffered a bodily and physical injury in 1922; that he was mentally incompetent and incapacitated in the year 1925, and said mental incompetence was total and permanent. Said disability resulted from a mental disease, and was such as to prevent him from engaging in any occupation whatever for remuneration or profit; that the defendant, during the year 1925, was advised both in writing and orally of the existence of the total, permanent disability; that because the disability complained of was mental incompetency and incapacity, Holt was excused from giving notice.

The complaint against the Missouri State Life Insurance Company contained the same allegations as the complaint against the Security Life Insurance Company of America, and alleged that the Missouri State Life Insurance Company had taken over all the policies and assumed all the liabilities of the other defendant.

Each defendant filed answer denying all the material allegations in the complaint.

The undisputed evidence shows that R. E. Holt was injured in an automobile accident in 1922, and it also shows that he had Huntington's chorea.

Many witnesses testified that prior to Holt's injury in 1922 he had a brilliant mind, and had a very high sense of honor. The evidence shows that he was a graduate of two universities; that he was practicing law in Stuttgart and had a good practice, and about these facts there is no dispute. Numbers of these witnesses testified that after the automobile accident his condition grew steadily worse, and some of these witnesses testified that after the accident, and in 1925, he was wholly incompetent to attend to business, and was, in fact, insane.

Competent physicians testified that the disease from which Holt was suffering manifested itself by jerky movements, and that it has a tendency to cause complete loss of reasoning power; that it is incurable; that he was incompetent in February, 1925.

Dr. Ponder testified that he based his answers on both the personal examination that he made of Holt, and the hypothetical question. He said that to have reached the point that the disease has now reached, indicated that it had been going on for a long time; that the physical and mental conditions go hand in hand. The doctors testifying for the appellee testified at length, giving their reasons for their conclusions, and testified that in their opinion he was insane early in 1925.

Competent doctors also testified for the appellants, and testified that in their opinion Holt was not insane. Dr. Pat Murphy testified that a man could conduct his business and carry on his business affairs for a long number of years after he develops chorea; that the mental deterioration comes by slow process; that he did not think an incompetent man could do the things that Holt had done. Dr. Murphy was corroborated by other expert witnesses.

There was also introduced in evidence numerous complaints which had been filed in the court signed by Holt, and correspondence between Holt and his clients, which tended to show that he was not insane. However, the evidence shows that some of the complaints introduced were written by other parties, and that Holt simply signed his name. Whether the other complaints introduced in evidence were written by Holt, the evidence does not show.

Judge Harvey R. Lucas, chancellor of the district, testified that he met Holt, and that Holt was in his court in 1925 and 1926; that he considered Holt peculiar, but did not think about the question of sanity or insanity, but that he was different from an ordinary man. He did not try any cases in Judge Lucas' court, but called attention to certain cases and asked for decrees.

Numbers of witnesses were introduced by appellants showing correspondence with Holt, and that Holt attended to business in the ordinary way after 1925, and as late as 1929. It will therefore be seen that the evidence as to Holt's incapacity and incompetency after his automobile accident in 1922 is in conflict. Arguments have been made for both appellants.

There was substantial evidence to the effect that Holt was incompetent after the automobile accident, and that his condition grew worse from that time on.

It is earnestly insisted by appellants that the court should have directed a verdict in their favor. As we have many times held in determining this question, we must view the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee, and if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict, it must be sustained. Missouri Pac. Rd. Co. v. Harville, 185 Ark. 47, 46 S.W.(2d) 17; Baltimore & O. Rd. Co. v. McGill Bros. Rice Mill, 185 Ark. 108, 46 S.W.(2d) 651; Altman-Rodgers Co. v. Rogers, 185 Ark. 561, 48 S.W.(2d) 239; Halbrook v. Williams, 185 Ark. 885, 50 S.W.(2d) 243; Arkansas P. & L. Co. v. Connelly, 185 Ark. 693, 49 S.W.(2d) 387; Chicago, R. I. & P. Ry. Co. v. Matthews, 185 Ark. 724, 49 S.W. (2d) 392.

There are many decisions of this court holding that if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict of the jury, it will not be disturbed. There are also numerous decisions to the effect that we do not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses nor the weight to be given to their testimony. If there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, this court cannot set it aside, even though we believe the verdict is contrary to the preponderance of the evidence. We cannot do it for the reason that it is the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to their testimony.

The appellants, however, contend that the evidence does not show total disability. They cite and discuss many authorities to support their contention, and they also rely on the evidence tending to show that Holt was practicing law and dealing and corresponding with clients, and apparently capable of attending to business. This evidence, however, is contradicted by numerous witnesses who testify that Holt was wholly incompetent in 1925.

If the appellants' evidence was without contradiction, the appellee, of course, could not recover because no notice...