National Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Williams

• Decision Date: 06 March 1933
• Docket Number: 30475
• Citation: 169 Miss. 604,146 So. 455
• Parties: NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. v. WILLIAMS
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

146 So. 455

169 Miss. 604

NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO. v. WILLIAMS

No. 30475

Supreme Court of Mississippi

March 6, 1933

Division A

Suggestion Of Error Overruled April 3, 1933.

APPEAL from circuit court of Marshall county HON. THOS.E. PEGRAM Judge.

Suit by Julia Williams against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Lester G. Fant, Sr. and Jr., of Holly Springs, for appellant.

The release was supported by consideration, it was accord and satisfaction.

The defendant tendered a payment of eight dollars and twenty-five cents in full satisfaction of all claims under the policy. The plaintiff accepted this return of premiums and by written release acknowledged it to be in full satisfaction.

Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Co. v. Sideboard, 161 Miss. 4, 133 So. 669; Phillips v. St. Paul F. & M. Ins. Co., 156 Miss. 41, 125 So. 705; May Bros. v. Doggett, 155 Miss. 849, 124 So. 476; A. Greener & Sons v. Cain & Sons, 137 Miss. 33, 101 So. 859; Cooper et al. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 82 Miss. 635; Darrill v. Dodds, 78 Miss. 912; Waterworks Co. v. Railroad Co., 102 Miss. 504, 59 So. 825; Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499; Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul R. Co. v. Heman Clark, 44 L.Ed. 1099, 178 U.S. 353; Nassoiy v. Tomlinson, 148 N.Y. 326, 51 Am. St. Rep. 695.

The execution of this release was not obtained by fraud, duress, or undue influence.

No, breath of suspicion of fraud comes from the evidence to attach to this transaction. But if it did, it would not be enough to avoid the transaction, because the party relying upon fraud must prove it in this state beyond a reasonable doubt.

Alabama, etc., Ry. Co. v. Turnbull, 71 Miss. 1029, 16 So. 346; Watson v. Owen, 142 Miss. 676, 107 So. 865; Alabama & V. Ry. Co. v. Kropp, 129 Miss. 616, 92 So. 691.

There was no liability on the insurance policy.

In the absence of statutory provisions to the contrary, insurance companies have the same right as individuals to limit their liability, and to impose whatever conditions they please upon their obligations not inconsistent with public policy; and the courts have no right to add anything to their contracts, or to take anything from them.

14 R. C. L. 929, sec. 103; 25 Cyc. 874, A, 1, b.

It is elementary that giving an instruction which assumes a theory of the facts of which there is no evidence is reversible error.

Davis v. Searcy, 79 Miss. 292, 130 So. 823; Mayor, etc., Town of Hickory v. Semmes, 123 Miss. 436, 86 So. 272; 14 R. C. L. 927, sec. 103.

Hindman Doxey, of Holly Springs, for appellee.

The purported release was not supported by consideration. It was not accord and satisfaction.

1 R. C. L. 178, par. 3.

The creditor must receive some distinct benefit from the substituted contract, which otherwise he would not have had, or there should be some detriment, however slight, to the debtor.

1 C. J. 529, par. 15; Phillips v. St. P. & M. Ins. Co., 156 Miss. 41; Cooper v. Railroad Co., 82 Miss. 634; 1 C. J. 544, par. 47; Life Ins. Co. v. Caine, 224 Ill. 599, 79 N.E. 956.

A consideration is necessary to render the accord and satisfaction valid, without consideration it is nudum pactum. There must be some advantage accruing to the party who yields his claim, or some detriment to the other party.

1 C. J. 528, par. 14, page 527, par. 12.

The purported release was obtained by fraud, deceit, or undue influence.

To constitute fraud it is unnecessary that a statement be made with the intention of deceiving, if it is a statement of fact, but not true as a matter of fact, since it has all the effect, so far as inducing the contract is concerned, as it would have had if made deliberately for the purpose of deceiving.

McNeer & Dodd et al. v. Norfleet et al., 113 Miss. 611; Alexander v. Meek, 132 Miss. 311; Davis v. Herd, 44 Miss. 50; Lundy v. Hazlett, 147 Miss. 820; Railroad Co. v. Chiles, 86 Miss. 366; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Ault, 101 Miss. 350.

There was liability on the insurance policy.

The company cannot contest the payment of the policy unless it can show that the insured fraudulently concealed the fact that he was not in good health when he received the policy.

Ins. Co. v. Elmore, 111 Miss. 137; Citizens National Life Ins. Co. v. Swords, 109 Miss. 635; Coplin v. Woodmen of the World, 105 Miss. 129; Metropolitan Casualty Co. v. Catoe, 113 Miss. 283; Casualty Co. v. Lightsey, 116 Miss. 138; New York Life v. Montgomery, 115 Miss. 353; McNeer v. Dodd, 113 Miss. 611; Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Jamerson, 153 Miss. 59; 14 R. C. L., pages 1071, 1017, supplement 7; 14 R. C. L. Supplement 5, secs. 247-251; 14 R. C. L., Supplement 6, secs. 247-251.

The universal rule of interpretation of contracts of insurance of all kinds is that in cases of doubt, that interpretation shall be given, which favors the insured rather than the insurer.

U. S. F. & G. Co. v. Hood, 124 Miss. 564.

Argued orally by Lester G. Fant, Jr., for appellant, and by Hindman Doxey, for appellee.

OPINION

Cook, J.

The appellee instituted this suit in the circuit court of Marshall county, against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company, upon an insurance policy on the life of her son, Roderick Williams, now deceased. To the declaration the defendant insurance company filed a plea of the general issue, with notice thereunder of an accord and satisfaction, and the execution by the appellee of the following release:

"$ 8.25 9--25--1929

"Received of W. B. Stark, Superintendent at Grenada, Miss., for the National Life & Accident Insurance Company, $ 8.25 Dollars return premium on Policies No. E9403401, insuring Roderick Williams which amount is accepted in full settlement and satisfaction of all claims under said policies, which are hereby surrendered to said Company for the following reasons: Impaired Risk at Time of Issue of Policy due to Injury two years ago.

"[Signed] Julia Williams.

"Witnessed:

"F. P. White

"W. B. Stark, Mgr."

The defendant company, appellee here, also gave notice that it would offer evidence to prove that the cause of the death of the insured was an injury received in an automobile accident some months prior to the issuance of the policy, and that it would rely in defense on the following provision of the policy: "No obligation is assumed by the company prior to the date hereof, nor unless on said date the insured is alive and in sound health. Should the proposed insured not be alive or not be in sound health on the date hereof, any amount paid to the company as premiums hereon shall be returned."

To the defense so set forth, the appellee filed an answer or reply averring that the said release was without consideration and was procured by misrepresentations, fraud, and duress, and was therefore invalid; and that the insured was in sound health at the time of the issuance of the policy sued on. At the conclusion of the evidence, the court excluded the said release on the ground that it was not supported by any consideration, but submitted the cause to the jury upon the issue as to whether or not the insured was in sound health, within the meaning of the policy, at the date of its issuance and delivery. Upon this issue, the jury found in favor of the appellee for the face of the policy less the sum of eight dollars and...