Munger v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc.
Decision Date | 31 March 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 8530.,8530. |
Citation | 2 F. Supp. 914 |
Parties | MUNGER et al. v. EQUITABLE LIFE ASSUR. SOC. OF THE UNITED STATES. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
William S. Hogsett, of Kansas City, Mo. (Hogsett, Smith, Murray & Trippe, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for plaintiffs.
William C. Michaels, of Kansas City, Mo. (Alexander & Green, of New York City, and Meservey, Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk & Eager, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for defendant.
Memorandum and Order on Defendant's Demurrer to the Petition.
Defendant has demurred to the petition in this case on the ground, among others, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in plaintiffs against defendant.
The plaintiffs are the executors of the estate of George H. Bunting, deceased. The petition alleges that in February, 1932, Bunting applied to the defendant, through one of its agents, for a contract of insurance upon his life in the amount of $25,000, that at the time of his application he made an advance payment of the required premium (first by a note and thereafter by a check taking up the note, which check was cashed by the defendant), that he underwent a medical examination, that he passed that medical examination satisfactorily, that he was an insurable risk, that while his application was pending and had not been acted on he was advised by the soliciting agent who had taken his application that there was some difficulty at the home office which was delaying action, but that he hoped to be able later to hand to Bunting the contract he had applied for. The defendant, so far as Bunting was aware or had been advised, had neither accepted nor rejected his application when on April 7, 1932, he was fatally injured in an automobile accident from which he died on the same day. After his death notice thereof was given to the defendant by Bunting's son, who was then notified by the defendant that the application had been declined March 1, 1932. It is alleged in the petition that the defendant owed a duty to Bunting either to accept or reject his application without unnecessary delay and within a reasonable time; that the defendant negligently violated this duty, and thereupon became liable in damages to Bunting, and upon his death to plaintiffs.
It is alleged also in the petition that the defendant fraudulently cashed the premium check given it by Bunting, fraudulently kept and retained the premium represented by the check, fraudulently deprived him of the use and benefit thereof, fraudulently masked from him the rejection of his application, and fraudulently led him to believe that his application had been accepted and was in force. The word "fraudulently," several times repeated as here indicated, was added to the petition by amendment before the argument on the demurrer.
Whether the petition states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in plaintiffs is the subject of this opinion.
1. There is no contention by plaintiffs that the defendant is under any contractual liability arising from its failure either to accept or reject the application within a reasonable time. That is not the theory of the petition. The theory is that an unreasonable delay is a breach of duty owing an applicant for insurance which subjects the company to liability in tort. The theory is supported by a number of opinions in decided cases, none of which, however, is controlling here. The cases cited are Duffie v. Bankers' Life Ass'n, 160 Iowa, 19, 139 N. W. 1087, 1090, 46 L. R. A. (N. S.) 25; Behnke v. Standard Accident Ins. Co. (7 C. C. A.) 41 F.(2d) 696; Strand v. Bankers' Life Ins. Co., 115 Neb. 357, 213 N. W. 349, 350; Kukuska v. Insurance Co., 204 Wis. 166, 235 N. W. 403, 405; American Life Ins. Co. v. Nabors (Tex. Civ. App.) 48 S. W.(2d) 459; Columbian National Life Ins. Co. v. Lemmons, 96 Okl. 228, 222 P. 255; De Ford v. New York Life Ins. Co., 75 Colo. 146, 224 P. 1049; Dyer v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 132 Wash. 378, 232 P. 346; Fox v. Life Ins. Co., 185 N. C. 121, 116 S. E. 226; Carter v. Life Ins. Co., 11 Hawaii, 69.
I have read and studied each of the cases plaintiffs have cited, and others. Most of them, so far as they deal with the present question, were written with scissors and paste. They but say, "We have said so before," or, "So elsewhere has the ruling been." Such cases are of little value. The Supreme Court of the United States has not spoken on this subject save in dictum. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has not spoken. For us the question is a new one — there is no precedent to follow — and, being new, must be decided in the light of principle and reason, not on a show of hands.
The theory of tort liability in a case like this is relatively novel in the law. Insurance contracts have been written for centuries, but only lately was it conceived that they are so different from other contracts as that one could acquire rights against an insurance company merely because the company delayed in accepting an offer to enter into a contract. There is natural curiosity to know what are the grounds on which this heterodoxy rests.
Nothing is more elementary than that there cannot be a tort liability unless there has been a legal duty which has been breached to one's injury.
Only four of the cases relied on by plaintiffs undertake to demonstrate the essential pre-existing legal duty. And what, according to them, is the duty basis for the asserted liability in tort? The answer is best and most fairly put in brief but exact quotations.
The Court of Hawaii (it leads the procession) said (Carter v. Life Ins. Co., supra):
Said the Supreme Court of Iowa (Duffie v. Bankers' Life Ass'n, supra):
Said the Supreme Court of Wisconsin (Kukuska v. Home Mutual Hail-Tornado Ins. Company, supra):
Said the Supreme Court of Nebraska (Strand v. Bankers' Life Ins. Co., supra): ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. Conservation Chemical Co.
...tort, there must be a duty and violation thereof and the violation must have proximately caused an injury, Munger v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 2 F.Supp. 914 (W.D.Mo.1933). To give rise to an action in "tort" the right violated must have been created and corresponding duty must hav......
-
Combow v. Kansas City Ground Inv. Co.
... ... v. Scharrenbeck, 204 S.W.2d ... 508; Munger v. Equitable Life Society, 2 F.Supp ... 914; Standard ... ...
-
Zayc v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. of Boston
... ... Prudential Life Ins. Co., 66 S.W.2d 983), ... Federal (Munger v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 2 F.Supp. 914 ... (Mo.). Cf. Behnke v ... ...
-
Rapp v. Lester L. Burdick, Inc.
...Life Ins. Co., 338 Pa. 426, 13 A.2d 34; Schliep v. Commercial Casualty Ins. Co., 191 Minn. 479, 254 N.W. 618; Munger v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, D.C.Mo., 2 F.Supp. 914; Patten v. Continental Casualty Co., 162 Ohio St. 18, 120 N.E.2d 441; Hayes v. Durham Life Ins. Co., 198 Va. 670, ......