Nat'l Fid. Life Ins. Co. v. Stroud
Decision Date | 26 March 1935 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 24581 |
Citation | 171 Okla. 247,1935 OK 323,42 P.2d 893 |
Parties | NATIONAL FIDELITY LIFE INS. CO. v. STROUD |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Insurance - Life Policy - Agreement for Extension of Time for Payment of Premium - Extension Fees not Part Payment of Premium.
Under agreement for extension of time for payment of premium on life policy, where extension fees were not considered as payments on premiums, but became property of insurer, and fees were to be returned if premium was paid, otherwise policy should lapse as of date premium was due, contention that extension fees were accepted in part payment of premium and were in fact paid for privilege of keeping policy in force during such period cannot be sustained. Dreeben v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York, 29 F. [2d] 963.
Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; Leslie Webb, Judge.
Action by Franklin Tecumsia Stroud against the National Fidelity Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Ramsey, deMeules, Martin & Logan and Morrison, Nugent, Wylder& Berger, for plaintiff in error.
Frank Hickman and Irvine E. Ungerman, for defendant in error.
¶1 The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.
¶2 This is a suit to recover on a life Insurance policy. Since the only question involved is whether the policy was in force at the time of the death of the insured, a rather extended statement of facts is necessary.
¶3 On May 5, 1930, the defendant issued its policy on the life of Ramey R. Stroud, a young man 21 years of age, in the amount of $2,000, the annual premium on which was $59.68. The beneficiary was the insured's father, Franklin T. Stroud, who was also the agent for the company and sold the policy. The first year's premium was paid in advance, thus keeping the insurance in force until May 5, 1931. The policy contained the usual 30 day grace period in which to pay premiums. The policy had attached to it certain dividend coupons, which, according to the terms of the policy, could be applied, the same as cash, in payment of the annual premiums. There was a provision in the policy, however, that if the premiums were paid in semi-annual or quarterly installments, the corresponding coupon could not be applied on the premium payments until the final installment of the annual premium was paid. When the second annual premium fell due on May 5, 1931, it was not paid. However, on May 15th (within the 30-day grace period) the insured mailed to defendant a post-office money order for $7 and the dividend coupon of $8.96, aggregating the sum of $15.96, as a "payment for the first quarter of this year." Defendant cashed the money order, but on May 21st returned the coupon to the insured, calling his attention to the provision of the policy that this coupon could not be used in payment of the premium until the last installment of the current year's premium was paid. In this letter defendant said:
¶4 This extension agreement was dated as of May 5th. It was signed by the insured and returned to defendant, and reads as follows:
¶5 On August 18th, defendant wrote the insured calling his attention to the fact that his policy had lapsed, and among other things said:
¶6 On August 24th, this letter was returned to defendant marked "unclaimed, unable to locate."
¶7 On September 2d, W.F. Stroud, an uncle of the insured, wrote defendant and inclosed a cashier's check in the sum of $16.06 "in payment of one quarterly premium policy of Ramey R. Stroud." On September 3rd, defendant replied as follows:
¶8 On September 14th, Mr. W.F. Stroud replied to defendant's letter saying that the insured "cannot be reached at this time." On September 16th, defendant replied to Mr. Stroud's letter and recited the various steps taken since the issuance of the policy and closed by saying:
"We are unable to apply the money you have now tendered until evidence of insurability has been furnished and we would suggest that you forward our health blank to Mr. Ramey R. Stroud."
¶9 On September 17th, Mr. Stroud replied to this letter saying:
¶10 On September 21st, defendant wrote Mr. Stroud (uncle of the deceased):
"We are returning, enclosed, cashier's check No. 79021 for $16.06 This was received after the above policy lapsed, and as reinstatement has not been applied for, cannot be credited thereon."
¶11 On September 30th, the father of the insured, the beneficiary under the policy, wrote defendant inclosing proof of death showing that the insured died on September 20th (the day before defendant wrote the last letter to the uncle of the insured).
¶12 It developed in the evidence that in July following the issuance of this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ill. Bankers Life Assur. Co. v. Cutlip, Case Number: 26121
...of this court on the question; in fact, we could not hold otherwise without squarely overruling the case of National Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. Stroud, 171 Okla. 247, 42 P.2d 893. ¶25 Both the Stroud Case and the case at bar involve extension agreement notes extending the time for the paymen......
-
Illinois Bankers Life Assur. Co. v. Cutlip
... ... Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Hislip, 154 Okl. 42, 6 ... P.2d 678, decided by this court on ... overruling the case of National Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v ... Stroud, 171 Okl. 247, 42 P.2d 893, 895 ... Both ... the ... ...
- National Fidelity Life Ins. Co. v. Stroud