Morgan v. Pacific Life Benefit Association, 7165

• Decision Date: 11 April 1944
• Docket Number: 7165
• Citation: 65 Idaho 519,147 P.2d 1013
• Parties: FRANCES MORGAN, Respondent, v. PACIFIC LIFE BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

147 P.2d 1013

65 Idaho 519

FRANCES MORGAN, Respondent,
v.
PACIFIC LIFE BENEFIT ASSOCIATION, a corporation, Appellant

No. 7165

Supreme Court of Idaho

April 11, 1944

1. Insurance

The contract of insurance between a mutual benefit association and its member is derived from the certificate of membership and the by-laws of the association.

2. Insurance

Contracts of insurance in mutual benefit associations are to be construed strictly against the association and in favor of the policyholder, and any ambiguity is resolved in favor of insured.

3. Insurance

In construing a family group policy issued by mutual benefit association, court must look to the entire contract, not singling out any particular or individual sentence or phrase.

4. Insurance

In construing a family group policy issued by mutual benefit association, the court must consider the physical appearance of the contract prepared by the association, which the court may assume was prepared with some purpose in mind.

5. Insurance

A family group policy issued to mutual benefit association member, which clearly indicated that maximum benefit of $1,000 was payable upon death of member between age of 21 and 50, was not affected by by-law provision limiting association's liability, upon the death of "any person of the family of the member" during the first six months after issuance of certificate, to $100 and to an additional $100 at the end of each 90 days thereafter, and upon death of member ten months after issuance of certificate and at the age of 33, the maximum benefit was payable.

Appeal from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Honorable L. E. Glennon, Judge.

Affirmed.

Milton E. Zener for appellant.

Contracts of insurance should be considered in view of their general objects and the conditions prescribed by the insurers, rather than on the basis of a strict technical interpretation. (Sweaney and Smith Co. v. St. Paul Fire Ins. Co., 35 Ida. 303; 206 P. 178; Sant v. Continental Life Insurance Company, 49 Ida. 691; 191 P. 1072; Rauert v. Loyal Protective Insurance Company, 61 Ida. 686; 106 P.2d 1015.)

O. R. Baum for respondent.

Where language of insurance policy may be given two meanings, one of which permits recovery and other which does not, it is to be given construction most favorable to insured. (Watkins v. Federal Life Ins. Co., 54 Ida. 174, 29 P.2d 1007; Rosenau v. Idaho Mutual Benefit Association, 65 Ida. 408.)

The provisions in a policy, limiting or avoiding liability, must be construed most strongly against the insurer. (Creem v. Northwestern Mutual Fire Association, 56 Ida. 529, 539, 56 P.2d 762; Kimbrough v. National Protective Insurance Ass'n., (Miss.) 35 S.W.2d 564, 658; Rosenau v. Idaho Mutual Benefit Association, supra.)

Contracts of insurance should be considered in view of their general objects and the conditions prescribed by the insurers, rather than on the basis of a strict technical interpretation. (Rauert v. Loyal Protective Ins. Co., 61 Ida. 677, 686; Sant v. Continental Ins. Co., 49 Ida. 691, 291 P. 1072.)

Givens, J. Holden, C.J., and Ailshie and Dunlap, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Givens, J.

[65 Idaho 520] Respondent's husband, Weldon Morgan, had, as a member thereof, a family insurance policy, No. 6446-G, issued August 2, 1941, with appellant, covering himself, respondent, and their four minor children, respondent being the designated beneficiary. Weldon...