Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hearne
Decision Date | 27 November 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 7887.) |
Citation | 226 S.W. 789 |
Parties | MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO. v. HEARNE. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Harris County; Henry J. Dannenbaum, Judge.
Suit by Madge W. Hearne against the Missouri State Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Baker, Botts, Parker & Garwood, of Houston, and Locke & Locke, of Dallas, for appellant.
Gill, Jones, Tyler & Potter, of Houston, for appellee.
This suit was brought by appellee to recover upon a life insurance policy issued to Roy W. Hearne, her deceased husband, for her benefit by appellant.
The company defended upon the ground that, said policy having lapsed, it was reinstated with a condition forming a part of the reinstatement contract that, if the insured should die by self-destruction, sane or insane, within one year from the company's approval of his application for reinstatement, the amount payable as a death benefit should be only the reserve on the policy, and that the insured did so die within one year, and that the defendant had tendered payment of the amount due. To this the plaintiff replied that, for a number of reasons urged by her, said condition was not valid and binding upon her.
The case was tried before a jury, but the court submitted to the jury only an issue as to the amount of a reasonable attorney's fee. Uncontroverted findings were made by the court that the insured died by suicide within a year from the date of the company's approval of his application for reinstatement.
It was undisputed that at the time of the death of assured, in January, 1917, the policy was in force, with all premiums paid thereon up to July 24, 1917, and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the terms of the original policy, unless the terms of the policy had been changed by the additional agreement alleged to have been made as a condition to the reinstatement of the policy, which was alleged to have lapsed by reason of assured's failure to pay a note given for a part of the 1915 premium.
Upon a return of a verdict by the jury fixing the sum of $5,000 as reasonable attorney's fees, judgment was rendered in favor of the appellee for the amount stated in the policy, with interest, attorney's fees, and statutory damages, aggregating the sum of $30,985, less the amount of a loan on the policy made by the company to Hearne a few months before his death.
The grounds upon which appellee insists that the suicide provision in the contract of reinstatement pleaded by the appellant constitutes no part of the contract of insurance, and is not binding upon appellee, all of which were properly pleaded in the court below, are:
The policy sued on was issued on August 3, 1909, and requires the payment of yearly premiums of $767, and contains a provision making it incontestable after August 3, 1910. It also contains the following provisions:
When the premium of $767, due July 24, 1915, matured, it was settled by the payment of $127 in cash, and the giving of a note for $640 due November 24, 1915. Said note contained a provision reading as below quoted, and the receipt given therefor contained a provision in substantially the same words, to wit:
"This note, together with one hundred twenty-seven and no/100 dollars in cash, is tendered to said company by the maker upon the understanding and agreement that it shall not be binding upon the maker until it is accepted by the president or secretary of said company, and if and when accepted such acceptance shall be upon the following agreement, to wit, that although no part of the * * * annual premium due on the 24th day of July, 1915, on policy No. 41131, has been paid, the insurance under said policy shall, subject to any indebtedness thereon, be continued in force until midnight of the due date of this note; that, if this note is paid on or before the date it becomes due, such payment, together with said cash, will then be accepted by said company as payment of said premium, and all rights under said policy shall thereupon be the same as if said premium had been paid when due; that, if this note is not paid on or before the day it becomes due, it shall thereupon automatically cease to be a claim against the maker, and said company shall retain said cash as part compensation for the rights and privileges hereby granted, and as the earned premium for the insurance granted from the maturity of said premium to the maturity of this note, and all rights under said policy shall be the same as if said cash had not been paid nor this agreement made."
When said note matured November 24, 1915, it was not paid in cash, but was settled by the payment of an additional sum of $40 in cash, the giving of a new note of $600 due February 24, 1916, and the payment of interest on the maturing note amounting to $12.80.
This note and the receipt issued by the company contained provisions identical with those contained in the previous note and receipt, except as to dates and amounts.
On January 26, 1916, the company sent to its agent, Leek, at San Antonio, for collection, the note of $600, maturing February 24, 1916. On the same day it mailed to the insured at his address, 211 Jefferson avenue, Dallas, Tex., given upon the note itself, a notice of the approaching maturity of the note. This notice was sent in an envelope which bore a return request card, and the postage was prepaid. The envelope never was returned by the post office...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Grand Lodge of United Brothers of Friendship and Sisters of Mysterious Ten v. Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co.
... ... Williams, Appellants No. 27216 Supreme Court of Missouri March 4, 1930 ... [25 S.W.2d 784] ... Appeal ... v. Am. Bonding Co., 197 Mo.App ... 430; Linz v. Life Ins. Co., 8 Mo.App. 363; State ... ex rel. Young v. Temperance Benefit ... Ins. Co., 116 N.Y.S. 617; Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v ... Hearne, 226 S.W. 789; 3 Joyce, Law of Ins. (2 Ed.) sec ... 1934a. (3) In ... ...
-
Kirby v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...of Civil Appeals of Texas, it was held that insurability means good health. The author of that opinion cites, as sole authority, the Hearne case, supra. Chambers v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, supra, the observation there made was apparently based solely on the Hearne case. We have......
-
Chambers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, APPELLANT Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City January 29, 1940 ... [138 S.W.2d 30] ... [Copyrighted Material Omitted] ... The ... facts show that on the 23rd day of July, 1924, in the State ... of Kansas, defendant issued to one, Albert L. Mason, the ... policy in question, agreeing to ... health" and an insurable interest. [ Mo. State Life ... Ins. Co. v. Hearne (Tex.), 226 S.W. 789.] ... "The ... term 'good health' does not mean absolute ... ...
-
Grand Lodge v. Bonding & Ins. Co.
...Ins. Co., 143 Mich. 290, 106 N.W. 860; Dineen v. Ins. Co., 110 N.Y. Supp. 344; Diamond v. Ins. Co., 116 N.Y. Supp. 617; Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Hearne, 226 S.W. 789; 3 Joyce, Law of Ins. (2 Ed.) sec. 1934a. (3) In construing the bond of a surety company the first consideration is the lan......