Nederland Life Insurance Company v. Mary Meinert

• Decision Date: 06 November 1905
• Docket Number: No. 11,11
• Citation: 50 L.Ed. 139,4 Ann. Cas. 480,26 S.Ct. 15,199 U.S. 171
• Parties: NEDERLAND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Limited, Petitioner , v. MARY MEINERT
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

199 U.S. 171

26 S.Ct. 15

50 L.Ed. 139

NEDERLAND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Limited, Petitioner,

v MARY MEINERT.

No. 11.

Argued October 18, 1905.

Decided November 6, 1905.

Mrs. Meinert, the plaintiff below, filed in the circuit court of the United States for the district of Indiana her amended complaint, by leave of court, against the petitioner, the insurance company, to recover $5,000 on a certain policy of insurance for that sum on the life of her deceased husband, William Meinert. She obtained judgment on the trial before a judge without a jury, which was affirmed in the circuit court of appeals. 62 C. C. A. 377, 127 Fed. 651. This court allowed a writ of certiorari to review that judgment, and the case is now here upon the return to that writ.

The material facts are the following: The company, on the 5th day of March, 1896, issued the policy in suit in consideration of the payment of quarterly premiums of $25.25, each, on or before the 5th days of March, June, September, and December in each year for five years; after that the payments were to be $64.25 for the following fourteen years or until the previous death of the insured, should his death occur before the expiration of the specified period. Four quarterly payments of $25.25 each were made, the last one having been made on or before December 5, 1896. No other instalment of premium was ever paid. The assured died on the 24th day of March, 1900. Over three years and three months had passed, therefore, since the last payment of any premium. Meinert, up to the time of his death, lived at Evansville, Indiana.

On the 15th day of February, 1897, the company sent him by mail a written notice as follows:

Nederland Life Insurance Co. (Ld.), established in Amsterdam (Holland), 1858. United States Branch, 874 Broadway, New York city.

Pursuant to chapter 690 of the insurance law of 1892 of the state of New York, you are hereby notified that the quarterly premium of $25.25 on policy No. 58021 will fall due on the 5th day of March, 1897, if the policy be then in force. The conditions of your policy provide that unless such premium shall be paid at the United States branch office of the company, or to a person authorized to collect such premium, holding the company's receipt therefor, by or before that date, the policy and all payments thereon will be forfeited and void, except as to the right to a cash surrender value or paid-up policy.

L. I. DuBourcq,

President of the U. S. Branch.

If payment is made to the company directly, it can be done by valid draft, check, postal or express money order, made out to the order of the United States Branch of the Nederland Life Insurance Co. (Ld.)

This notice was duly received by the assured February 16, 1897.

On Saturday, April 3, 1897, the company sent him by mail another notice, as follows:

Nederland Life Insurance Co., Limited, established 1858, Amsterdam, Holland. United States Branch, 874 Broadway, New York.

New York, April 3, 1897.

William Meinert,

217 Law ave., Evansville, Indiana.

Dear Sir:——

The premium on your policy which fell due on the 5th March has not been paid, and the policy is therefore null and void. I beg to inform you, however, that if the same is paid within ten days your policy will be reinstated.

L. L. DuBourcq.

President.

Policy No. 58021.

This notice was received by him in due course of mail on Monday, April 5, 1897, but he never acknowledged its receipt, and never took any steps to have the policy reinstated. On April 22, 1897, the company entered on the appropriate records of its office the declaration that the policy was forfeited and lapsed for failure to pay instalment of premium.

It was agreed between the company and the assured that the provisions printed or written upon the back of the policy were to be taken as part of it, as fully as if they were set forth at length on its face, and signed by the parties. One of them was article 2, which reads as follows:

'In case of nonpayment of any annual premium or instalment thereof within thirty days after the same shall fall due, this policy shall be null and void, subject, however, to provisions as to cash surrender and paid-up policy values. The company will, however, as a matter of favor, and not of right, mail notice to the insured or the assignee, at the last address furnished by him or them to the company, to the effect that the policy may be re-established by the payment of the annual premium or instalment thereof still due, within ten days after mailing notice.'

The application for the insurance, which, by agreement, was also made part of the contract, provided that 'this application shall be governed by the laws of the state of New York, the place of said contract to be the principal office in the United States of said company, in the city of New York.'

Messrs.John L. Cadwalader, George W. Wickersham, and George Coggill for petitioner.

Messrs. G. K. Denton, Albert J. Beveridge, and Larz. A. Whitcomb for respondent.

Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham:

Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court:

The judgment in favor of the plaintiff below for the recovery of the amount found due upon the policy in question is based on the above-mentioned facts, the courts holding that the policy was not forfeited, but was in full force because of the alleged failure of the company to comply with the law of New York in relation to giving the notice provided for therein. The provision in question is found in § 92, chapter 690, of the Laws of New York for 1892. The section is set forth in the margin.¹

The alleged failure to comply with the terms of the section consists in prefixing the words, 'the conditions of your policy provide,' to the notice required by the statute, which provides that the notice shall state that 'unless such premium . . . then due shall be paid . . . by or before the day it falls due' (March 5, 1897), 'the policy and all payments thereon will become forfeited and void,' etc., whereas, by reference to the policy, article 2, indorsed on the back thereof, it will be seen that if the premium is not paid within thirty days after the same shall fall due, the policy shall be null and void. The notice thus mistakenly states that the policy 'by its conditions' will become void, etc., while in truth it is the language of the statute which the notice uses.

The company contends that the law of New York does not, for the reasons stated in the brief of counsel, apply to the particular facts set forth herein, and it also contends that the notice which was in fact given fully complied with the terms of the law. We pass over the first contention without discussion, because we are of opinion that, assuming the New York statute to apply, the notice given by the company was sufficient, and the policy was forfeited long before the death of the plaintiff's husband.

Referring to the statute, it is seen that, by omitting the above-mentioned words, 'the conditions of your policy provide,' the rest of the notice actually given does comply with the terms of the statute. The notice informed the assured that, unless the premium which would fall due on the 5th of March, 1897, if the policy was then in force, should be paid by or before that date, the policy and all payments thereon would become forfeited and void, except as to the right to a cash surrender value or paid-up policy. This is exactly what the statute required the notice to state. The statute does not require the notice to state that the policy would become forfeited only after the expiration of thirty days after the payment became due, or notice was mailed, in case such payment were not made, but it says distinctly that the notice shall state that failure to pay the premium...