Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Edwards
| Decision Date | 15 October 1935 |
| Docket Number | 25604. |
| Parties | MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASS'N v. EDWARDS. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. In an action on a life insurance contract, where no written policy or contract is made or issued, and the plaintiff relies upon an alleged oral contract of insurance with the soliciting agent of the company, and the evidence merely shows that the agent has authority to take applications and transmit them to the home office, where the risk is passed upon and the policy issued or refused, then such agent cannot bind the company by an oral agreement of insurance, and a verdict should be instructed for the defendant.
2. In such an action, the burden is on the plaintiff to show the authority of the agent and the making of the contract as alleged.
Appeal from District Court, Cherokee County; W. A. Woodruff, Judge.
Action by Blanche Edwards against the Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.
Hal Crouch and Philip N. Landa, both of Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.
H. M Vance and C. F. Bliss, both of Tahlequah, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff in the trial court brought this action against the defendant association to recover $2,500 on account of the accidental death of her husband, Frank Edwards. It was the theory of plaintiff's action that the defendant had insured Frank Edwards against accidental death in the sum of $2,500, naming the plaintiff as beneficiary, that the defendant, through its agent, S. R. Wells, had entered into an oral contract of insurance, and that the defendant was bound as if it had issued an insurance policy.
It was the contention of the defendant that no insurance policy had been issued, and that, while Frank Edwards had made application for the policy, no authorized oral contract had been made, and that Edwards was accidentally shot before the application had been accepted and the policy issued.
The facts in material substance are as follows: On September 7 1932, Frank Edwards made application for an insurance policy to be issued by the defendant. The application was in writing and signed by Frank Edwards and delivered to the defendant's soliciting agent, S. R. Wells. The application in part was in the form of questions, to which the applicant made his answers over his signature, and among others there appeared this question and answer:
At the same time the applicant, Frank Edwards, paid to the agent $6 on premium and received from the agent a receipt in words and figures as follows:
"Receipt
Sept 7 1932
Received of Frank L. Edwards an application for a policy in the Mutual Benefit Health and Accident Association, and Six & No/100 on policy Dollars.
Should the company decline to issue the insurance applied for, I do hereby agree to return the above sum to said applicant.
On back:
On the tenth day thereafter Frank Edwards was accidentally shot, and the following month he died of such accidental injury. Thereafter the plaintiff made demand for the payment of $2,500, the amount of insurance applied for by Frank Edwards, and upon refusal of payment she instituted this action.
Upon trial, the plaintiff recovered judgment for the sums sued for, and the defendant appeals, urging that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the judgment and that the trial court erred in overruling defendant's demurrer to plaintiff's evidence and in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant.
It must be clear that what transpired between the applicant and soliciting agent did not amount to a contract of insurance, and that neither of the parties could have reasonably believed that it did. There was nothing more than an application for an insurance policy, which might or might not be issued by the defendant association to whom the application was directed. The application evidenced the intention of the parties that the application was not to be binding upon the association until the association had accepted it and had issued and delivered the policy applied for.
It is true that at the time of making the application the applicant paid $6 on...
To continue reading
Request your trial