New York Life Ins. Co. v. Sinquefield, 4 Div. 838

• Decision Date: 17 October 1935
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 838
• Citation: 163 So. 812,231 Ala. 185
• Parties: NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. SINQUEFIELD.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

163 So. 812

231 Ala. 185

NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. SINQUEFIELD.

4 Div. 838

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 17, 1935

Rehearing Denied Nov. 7, 1935

Certiorari to Court of Appeals.

Petition of New York Life Insurance Company for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision of that court in New York Life Ins. Co. v Sinquefield, 163 So. 809.

Writ denied.

Rushton Crenshaw & Rushton, of Montgomery, for petitioner.

Mulkey & Mulkey, of Geneva, for respondent.

KNIGHT Justice.

This case reaches this court on petition for certiorari to review and revise the opinion and judgment of the Court of Appeals in the case of New York Life Insurance Company v. Minnie L. Sinquefield, 163 So. 809.

In view of the findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, both as to the furnishing of due proof of disability, and that the evidence was such as to carry the case to the jury upon the issue of total permanent disability, the writ prayed for must be denied. Postal Telegraph-Cable Co. v. Minderhout, 195 Ala. 420, 71 So. 91; Birmingham Electric Co. v Hereford, 227 Ala. 321, 149 So. 863; Loveman, Joseph & Loeb v. Himrod, 226 Ala. 342, 147 So. 163.

The Court of Appeals found that the proof of disability furnished by the insured was "due proof" within the meaning of the policy contract, and that the evidence upon the issue of total permanent disability was sufficient to carry the case to the jury.

However, there are some expressions to be found in the opinion of the Court of Appeals that are not in accord with the holdings of this court, and which we do not approve.

The action was brought by the plaintiff upon an insurance contract to recover disability benefits.

The policy contract provided, inter alia: "Upon receipt at the company's home office, before default in payment of premium, of due proof that the insured is totally disabled as above defined, and will be continuously so totally disabled for life, or if proof submitted is not conclusive as to the permanency of such disability but establishes that the insured is, and for a period of not less than three consecutive months immediately preceding receipt of proof has been totally disabled as above defined, the following benefits will be granted."

Under the above-quoted provision of the policy contract, there could be no recovery, and no liability, unless (a) the insured's disability was of such character as to meet the conditions, in that respect, of the policy; and (b) unless "due proof" of such disability was furnished the company at its home office before default in the payment of premiums.

The furnishing of this due proof of disability constituted a condition precedent to any obligation on the part of the insurer to pay disability benefits. The obligation to pay disability benefit, therefore, does not rest wholly upon the existence of the disability, but it is the receipt by the company of proof of disability which is definitely made a condition precedent to an assumption by the insurer of the payment of benefits. This court has firmly committed itself to this holding in construing insurance contracts similar to the one now before the court. Kimsey v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. (Ala.Sup.) 161 So. 796; McCutchen v. All States Life Ins. Co., 229 Ala. 616, 158 So. 729; McGifford v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 227 Ala. 588, 151 So. 349; New England Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Reynolds, 217 Ala. 307, 116 So. 151, 59 A.L.R. 1075; Burchfield v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 230 Ala. 49, 159 So. 235.

The defendant's plea of the general issue cast upon the plaintiff the burden of proving that she had given the defendant due proof of disability as averred in her complaint. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Foster, 230 Ala. 209, 160 So. 117; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Dorriety, 229 Ala. 352, 157 So. 59; Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Barton (Ala.Sup.) 160 So. 684.

It is thus apparent that the Court of...