Nat'l Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Wallace

• Decision Date: 07 March 1933
• Docket Number: Case Number: 21404
• Citation: 21 P.2d 492,162 Okla. 174,1933 OK 160
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Parties: NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. et al. v. WALLACE.

1933 OK 160

21 P.2d 492

162 Okla. 174

NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. et al. v. WALLACE.

Case Number: 21404

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 7, 1933

Syllabus

¶0 1.Torts--Interference With Another's Business as Actionable Wrong.

A person has a right to carry on and prosecute a lawful business in which he is engaged without unlawful molestation or unjustified interference from any person, and any malicious interference with such business is an unlawful act and an actionable wrong.

2.Same -- Insurance -- Reasonableness of Policy Providing That Proofs of Illness Must Be Submitted by Physician Satisfactory to Insurer.

A provision in an insurance policy providing that proofs of illness must be submitted to it by a physician satisfactory to it, is not unreasonable; but the insurance company cannot act arbitrarily in determining its satisfaction or dissatisfaction with a physician.

3.Same--Right to Invade Another's Contractual Rights in Protecting Own Contractual Rights.

Persons, in protecting their contractual rights, may invade another's contractual rights, where the former's interest is equal or superior to that of the latter's, and where such invasion is made with the honest intent and purpose of fairly bettering one's own business, trade, or employment, and not for the primary object of wrongfully destroying or injuring another's business.

Appeal from District Court, Okmulgee County; John L. Norman, Judge.

Action by A. L. Wallace against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company et al.Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal.Reversed and remanded.Upon motion suggesting death of plaintiff in error V. H. Orr, appeal revived as to him in the name of his heirs, Ruth K. Orr et al.

Cochran & Noble and West, Gibson, Sherman, Davidson & Hull, for plaintiffs in error.

J. H. Stephens and A. L. J. Meriwether, for defendant in error.

BAYLESS, J.

¶1A. L. Wallace, a physician of Okmulgee, Okla., instituted an action in the district court of Okmulgee county, Okla., against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company, a corporation, and V. H. Orr and E. W. Orr, agents of the said company.The parties will be referred to as they appeared in the trial court.In the course of the trial the evidence substantially follows the allegations contained in the pleadings.

¶2 The evidence of the plaintiff established his profession, his standing and reputation as a physician and the extent of his practice; his knowledge of the defendant company and its agents; his learning of the agents of the company advising its policyholders, some of whom were his patients and some of whom were prospective patients, that he was unsatisfactory to the company and it would not pay claims based upon his certificates; and the loss of patients and prospective patients and the reduction of his income.The evidence of the defendant established the nature and character of its business; shows that it instructed its agent to advise its policyholders the plaintiff was unsatisfactory to it as a certifying physician and it would not pay claims approved by him as the attending physician; sets out an accumulation of instances connected with claims certified to by the plaintiff over a period of three or four years, upon which it based its decision that the plaintiff was unsatisfactory to it as a certifying physician; introduced the standard form of policy of insurance, which contains, among others, the following proviso:

"3.The insured shall not be entitled to any benefits for sickness or accident under this policy unless a certificate on the Company's form by a regular licensed and practicing physician who is satisfactory to the Company * * *"

--and denied the conspiracy or any malice, ill-will or desire to injure the plaintiff, but asserted only a desire to protect itself.The plaintiff in rebuttal denied specifically any wrongdoing in connection with the instances recited by the company as causing it to believe him to be unsatisfactory, and denied generally all other matters.

¶3The case was tried to the court without a jury, and at the conclusion of the trial the court prefaced its judgment by an informal statement, which, in substance, is as follows: There is no substantial conflict in the evidence; there was no conspiracy on the part of the defendants; there was no ill-will or spite on their part, but only a desire to better its business by paying claims based upon reports of physicians other than plaintiff; and that the company felt it had a legal right under the terms of the policy and the reasons given by it regarding the conduct of the plaintiff to declare to its agents and policyholders that the plaintiff was unsatisfactory to it as a certifying physician.The trial court further stated that the company was mistaken both in its opinion as to its rights under the policy and as to the evidence of untrue and unreliable certificates of claim executed by the plaintiff.The trial court held that the conduct of the defendants was indiscreet and thoughtless of the possible effect of its conduct on the plaintiff's business, that the plaintiff had been damaged and should have judgment in the sum of $ 500.

¶4The defendants have treated this action in their brief as an action for slander and argue at length that the allegations of the petition and the evidence in support thereof are not...