Moss v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 84 S.W.2d 395,230 Mo.App. 70
• Parties: CHARLES R. MOSS, RESPONDENT, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT
• Decision Date: 02 July 1935
• Court: Court of Appeal of Missouri (US)

84 S.W.2d 395

230 Mo.App. 70

CHARLES R. MOSS, RESPONDENT, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO., APPELLANT

Court of Appeals of Missouri, St. Louis

July 2, 1935

Appellant's motion for rehearing overruled July 16, 1935.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of St. Louis County.--Hon. Julius R Nolte, Judge.

REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).

W. A Brookshire for respondent.

(1) What constitutes total and permanent disability is a question of fact for a jury. 37 C. J. 643; Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Joyce (2 Ed.), vol. 5, sec. 3031; Mass. Bonding Ins. Co. v. Worthy, 9 S.W.2d 388, l. c. 393; United States v. Martin, 54 F.2d 554; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Lambert, 128 So. 750; Katz v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 44 S.W.2d 250; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Noe, 31 S.W.2d 689; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Singletary, 3 P.2d 657; Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Blue, 133 So. 707; Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Turner, 39 S.W.2d 216; Bullock v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 158 S.E. 185; Inter-Ocean Casualty v. Brown, 31 S.W.2d 233; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Fannin v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 53 S.W.2d 703; Dawson v. Bankers Life Insurance Co., 247 N.W. 279; Holmes v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 60 S.W.2d 557; Maze v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 246 N.W. 737; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Wyant, 61 S.W.2d 50; Janney v. Scranton Life Ins. Co., 173 A. 819, 315 Pa. 200. (2) The fact that the plaintiff worked a few days after the insurance policy lapsed will not preclude his recovery if in fact he was totally and permanently disabled at the time the policy lapsed. Millis v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 298 P. 739; Wall v. Casualty Ins. Co., 111 Mo.App. 504, l. c. 522-523, 526, 527, 528; Laupheimer v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 1058; Laupheimer v. North Western Mutual Life Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 1062; Bullock v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 158 S.E. 185; Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Turner, 39 S.W.2d 216; Katz v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 44 S.W.2d 250; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Fannin v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 53 S.W.2d 703; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Wyant, 61 S.W.2d 50; Kemper v. Police & Firemen's Ins. Asso., 44 S.W.2d 978; Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Asso. v. Bird, 47 S.W.2d 812; Lumbra v. U.S. 54 S.Ct. 272, l. c. 276; Clarkson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 4 F. Sup. 791, l. c. 793. (3) The appellate courts of Missouri, as well as a great majority of other states, have given liberal interpretations to total and permanent disability provisions in insurance contracts and have permitted recoveries, although the insured was able to do some work if he was in fact in such a physical condition that he could not perform work for which he was mentally and physically suited in a substantial manner without endangering his life or health, and if such disabilities were of a permanent character. Maze v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 246 N.W. 737; Ursaner v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 262 New York Supplement, 462; Medlinsky v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 263 New York Supplement, 179; Wall v. Casualty Ins. Co., 111 Mo.App. 504, l. c. 522-523, 526-527-528; James v. Casualty Ins. Co., 113 Mo.App. 622, l. c. 629; McMahon v. The Supreme Council, 54 Mo.App. 468, l. c. 472-473-474; Katz v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 44 S.W.2d 250; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Carson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 203 N.W. 209; Bullock v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 158 S.E. 185; Travelers' Insurance Co. v. Turner, 39 S.W.2d 216; Laupheimer v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 158; Laupheimer v. North Western Mutual Life Ins. Co., 24 S.W.2d 1062; Minnesota Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 29 F.2d 977; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Lambert, 128 So. 750; Mass. Bonding Ins. Co. v. Worthy, 9 S.W.2d 388, l. c. 393; Prudential Insurance Co. v. Singletary, 3 P.2d 657; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Blue, 133 So. 707; United States v. Martin, 54 F.2d 544; Inter-Ocean Casualty Co. v. Brown, 31 S.W.2d 233; Fannin v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 53 S.W.2d 703; Millis v. Continental Life Ins. Co., 298 P. 739; Maresch v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 299 P. 934; Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, 162 S.E. 429; Manuel v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 139 So. 548; Winters Mutual Aid Association v. Reddin, 31 S.W.2d 1103; Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 255 S.W.2d 1093; Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. McCreary, 32 S.W.2d 1052; Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Spencer, 32 S.W.2d 310; Gresham v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 156 S.E. 878; Adamson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 157 S.E. 104; Green v. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co., 167 S.E. 38; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Tarbutton, 163 S.E. 299; U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. McCarthy, 50 F.2d 2; Cody v. John Hancock Ins. Co., 163 S.E. 4; Wilson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 245 N.W. 826; Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Asso. v. Bird, 47 S.W.2d 812; Losnecki v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 161 Atlantic 434; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 54 S.W. 407; Foglesong v. Modern Brotherhood, 121 Mo.App. 548; Cole v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 170 Atlantic, 74; Garden v. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 254 N.W. 287; Jones v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U.S. 175 S.E. 425; Forman v. New York Life Ins. Co., 255 N.W. 222; Porter v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 71 S.W.2d 766; Austel v. Volunteer Life Ins. Co., 170 S.E. 776; Rickey v. New York State Life Ins. Co., 71 S.W.2d 88; Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cotton, 148 So. 177; Curlee v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 144 So. 686; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Torrance, 141 So. 547; Kane v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 73 S.W.2d 826; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Staggs, 75 S.W.2d 214. (4) Respondent's instruction number one correctly stated the law governing this case. Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101. (5) Respondent's instruction number three is a correct statement of the law and was not erroneously given by the court. Hardie v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 746; Hurt v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 53 S.W.2d 1101; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Wells, 72 S.W.2d 33; Equitable Life Assurance Society v. Merlock, 69 S.W.2d 12; Prudential Life Ins. Co. v. Harris, 70 S.W.2d 949; Harrison v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 70 S.W.2d 24; Pacific Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Cotton, 148 So. 177; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Castle, 67 S.W.2d 17; Gresham v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 156 S.E. 878. (6) The amount of recovery contained in instruction No. 5 is correctly stated. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the U. S. v. Felton, 71 S.W.2d 1049; Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Grabiel, 57 S.W.2d 824; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Gregory, 67 S.W.2d 602; Stahl v. American National Assurance Co., 70 S.W.2d 78; Hablutzel v. Home Life Ins. Co., 58 S.W.2d 639; Home Life Ins. v. Ward, 75 S.W.2d 379; Aetna Life Ins. v. Langstron, 76 S.W.2d 50.

Fordyce, White, Mayne & Williams and R. E. LaDriere for appellant.

Leroy A. Lincoln of counsel.

(1) Verdict should have been directed for the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case and at the close of the entire case, because there was not sufficient evidence to show the existence of total and permanent disability while insurance was in force as required by the policy. Herwig v. Insurance Company, 234 S.W. 853; Equitable Life Ins. Co. v. Singletary (C. C. A. 4th), 71 F.2d 409; James Boozer, etc., v. Equitable Life Assurance Company (Sup. Ct. N. C.), 175 S.E. 175; Hickman v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (Sup. Ct. S. C.), 164 S.E. 878; Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Person (Ark. Sup.), 67 S.W.2d 1007; Durant v. Aetna Life Insurance Company (Sup. Ct. S. C.), 164 S.E. 881. (2) Plaintiff's instruction No. 1 is erroneous in that the evidence did not justify the same, and the wording thereof did not correctly state the issues. (3) Plaintiff's instruction No. 3 is erroneous and confusing and constitutes a comment on the evidence, contradicts itself and there is no evidence to justify it; moreover the policy was not susceptible of construction by the court. State ex rel. v. Trimble, 306 Mo., l. c. 309. (4) Plaintiff's instruction No. 5 is erroneous because it takes from the jury a matter which should be left to it for decision, namely, the question of the amount of damages, if any, and permitted an excessive verdict. (5) The judgment was erroneously for an amount which was clearly excessive under the law. Adams v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 74 S.W.2d 899 (Springfield Court of Appeals); Hundley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 172 S.E. 361 (N. C.); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Farrell, 63 S.W.2d 520 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, decided October 9, 1933); Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Milton, 127 S.E. 798 (Court of Appeals of Ga., April 11, 1925); Atlas Life Ins. Co. of Tulsa, Okla., v. Wells, 63 S.W.2d 533 (Supreme Court of Arkansas); Jegglin v. Orr, 29 S.W.2d 721 (Kansas City); Bonslett v. New York Life Ins. Co., 190 S.W. 870; Allen v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 67 S.W.2d 534; Chipley v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 67 S.W.2d 992 (Kansas City); Kithcart v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 1 F. Sup. 719 (Western District of Missouri); Puckett v. National Ins. Assn., 134 Mo.App. 501; Leon v. Barnsdall Zinc Co., 274 S.W. 699 (Supreme).

SUTTON, C. Hostetter, P. J., and Becker and McCullen, JJ., concur.

OPINION

SUTTON, C.

This is an action on what is known as a group policy of insurance issued by defendant to the St. Joseph Lead Company for the benefit of its employees.

The policy provides as follows:

"Upon receipt, at its Home Office in the City of...