Nick v. Travelers Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 04 September 1945
• Docket Number: 39455
• Parties: Marguerite A. Nick v. Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

189 S.W.2d 532

354 Mo. 376

Marguerite A. Nick v. Travelers Insurance Company, Appellant

No. 39455

Supreme Court of Missouri

September 4, 1945

Rehearing Denied October 1, 1945.

Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court; Hon. John F. Cook Judge.

Affirmed.

Clay C. Rogers and Mosman, Rogers, Bell & Conrad for appellant.

(1) Nick had no "vested interest" in the policy and notice to him of cancellation was not necessary. Williams v. Sun Life Assur. Soc., 235 Mo.App. 741, 148 S.W.2d 112; Magee v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 62 N.D 614, 244 N.W. 518; White v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 235 Mo.App. 156, 127 S.W.2d 98; Longley v Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 161 S.W.2d 27; Crawford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 167 S.W.2d 915; Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 17 A.2d 907; Duval v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 82 N.H. 543, 136 A. 400; Austin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 142 So. 337; Stoner v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 28 Dauphin Co. Rep. 235; Beecey v. Travelers Ins. Co., 267 Mass. 135, 166 N.E. 571; Szymanski v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 304 Mich. 483, 8 N.W.2d 146; Davis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 161 Tenn. 655, 32 S.W.2d 1034; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 203 Ark. 1103, 160 S.W.2d 852; Curd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 180 S.E. 249; Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. Boseman, 84 F.2d 701; Berry v. Travelers Ins. Co., 64 Ga.App. 727, 14 S.E.2d 196; Boseman v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 301 U.S. 196, 57 S.Ct. 686; Doty v. Natl. Amer. Ins. Co., 165 S.W.2d 862. (2) The privilege granted by the group policy to Nick of applying for a life policy did not extend the insurance coverage beyond the date of cancellation. Williams v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 235 Mo.App. 741, 148 S.W. 112; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Catchings, 75 F.2d 628; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, 188 Ark. 154, 65 S.W.2d 25; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Yates, 288 Ky. 309, 156 S.W.2d 128; Kowalski v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 266 Mass. 255, 165 N.E. 476; Beecey v. Travelers Ins. Co., 267 Mass. 135, 166 N.E. 571; English v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 300 Mass. 482, 15 N.E.2d 804; Duval v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 82 N.H. 543, 136 A. 400; Fearon v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 246 N.Y. 701; Pearson v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 212 N.C. 731, 194 S.E. 661; Young v. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 41 N.E.2d 895; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Hinkle, 74 S.W.2d 1082; Schooley v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 77 S.W.2d 886; Lewis v. Conn. Genl. Life Ins. Co., 94 S.W.2d 499; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 203 Ark. 1103, 160 S.W.2d 852; Clapp v. Sun Life Assur., 163 S.W.2d 537. (3) Policy interpretation. Plaintiff suing upon a group policy must accept it as written. The Tea Company (the insured) and the insurance company have no misunderstanding about the policy provisions or what was done or what was to be done about the cancellation of Nick's insurance. There is no ambiguity in the policy and the beneficiary of the employee must accept the terms under the group policy as written. Williams v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 235 Mo.App. 741, 148 S.W.2d 112; Adair v. Ins. Co., 124 S.W.2d 657. (4) The court is without power to re-write the contract made between the insurance company and the Tea Company. Prangle v. International Life Ins. Co., 329 Mo. 651, 46 S.W.2d 523; Inter-State Business Men's Acc. Assn. v. Nichols, 143 Ark. 369, 220 S.W. 477; State ex rel. v. Cox, 322 Mo. 38, 14 S.W.2d 600; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 306 Mo. 295, 267 S.W. 876; State ex rel. v. Trimble, 297 Mo. 659, 249 S.W. 902; Winters v. Insurance Co., 221 Mo.App. 519, 290 S.W. 109; Duval v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 82 N.H. 543, 136 A. 400; Kimbal v. Travelers Ins. Co., 10 So.2d 728; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 203 Ark. 1103, 160 S.W.2d 852. (5) The group policy authorized the employer to cancel or change the insurance without notice to the employee. The employer was the agent of the employee. Williams v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 235 Mo.App. 741, 148 S.W.2d 112; Magee v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 62 N.D. 614, 244 N.W. 518; Longley v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer., 161 S.W.2d 27; Crawford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 167 S.W.2d 915; Thull v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 40 Ohio App. 486, 178 N.E. 850; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Larocco, 68 F.2d 451; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson, 203 Ark. 1103, 160 S.W.2d 852; Kimbal v. Travelers Ins. Co., 10 So.2d 728; Berry v. Travelers Ins. Co., 64 Ga.App. 727, 14 S.E.2d 196; Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 17 A.2d 907; Clapp v. Sun Life Assur. Co., 163 S.W.2d 537; Davis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 161 Tenn. 655, 32 S.W.2d 1034; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Hall, 253 Ky. 450, 69 S.W.2d 977; Kingsland v. Mo. State Life, 228 Mo.App. 198, 66 S.W.2d 959; Beecey v. Travelers Ins. Co., 267 Mass. 135, 166 N.E. 571; Colter v. Travelers Ins. Co., 270 Mass. 424, 170 N.E. 407; Duval v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 82 N.H. 543, 137 A. 400. (6) The grace period provided in the contract was personal to the Tea Company and the employee is not entitled to claim that his insurance was in effect after his employer had cancelled same. Miller v. Travelers Ins. Co., 17 A.2d 907; Johnson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 52 Ga.App. 759, 184 S.E. 392; Davis v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 161 Tenn. 655, 32 S.W.2d 1034; Venditto v. Spratt's Patent, 113 N.J.L. 357, 174 A. 697; Curd v. Travelers Ins. Co., 180 S.E. 249; Szymanski v. John Hancock Mut. Ins. Co., 304 Mich. 483, 8 N.W.2d 146. (7) Cases relied upon by the Court of Appeals and the respondent distinguished. 29 Am. Jur. 1033, sec. 1382; Butler v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 233 Mo.App. 94, 93 S.W.2d 1019; Poch v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 343 Pa. 119, 22 A.2d 590; Powell v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 173 S.C. 50, 174 S.E. 649; Emerick v. Connecticut Genl. Life Ins. Co., 120 Conn. 60, 179 A. 335; Deese v. Travelers Ins. Co., 204 N.C. 214, 167 S.E. 797; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 123 P.2d 656; Hayes v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 235 Mo.App. 1261, 150 S.W.2d 1113; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Gullett, 253 Ky. 544, 69 S.W.2d 1068.

Leo A. Spalding and Clarence C. Chilcott for respondent.

(1) Group insurance is not term insurance. 1 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, pp. 10, 36; Ambrose v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 10 A.2d 479; Kolodziej v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 30 N.E.2d 916. (2) There was no lapse of the policy because of insured's failure to contribute his portion of premium. Keaton v. Natl. Union Ins. Co., 182 S.W. 798. (3) As to appellant's claim that decedent's insurance was rightfully cancelled. Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 39 A. 721; Ambrose v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 18 N.J. Misc. 42, 10 A.2d 479; John Hancock Ins. Co. v. Pappageorgu, 24 N.E.2d 428; Kolodziej v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 30 N.E.2d 916; Shea v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 198 N.E. 909; Wells v. Equitable Assur. Soc., 29 F.Supp. 144, 107 F.2d 608; Poch v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 22 A.2d 590; Smithhart v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 167 Tenn. 513, 70 S.W.2d 105; Shears v. All State Life Ins. Co., 5 So.2d 88; Butler v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 233 Mo.App. 94, 93 S.W.2d 1019; Ozanick v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 A. 67; Emerick v. Conn. General Life Ins. Co., 120 Conn. 60, 179 A. 335, 105 A.L.R. 413; Equitable Assur. Soc. v. Florence, 173 S.E. 317; Mutual Reserve Life Assn. v. Austin, 142 F. 398. (4) Additional authorities holding that employment is a status and irregular work or employment elsewhere is not a termination of employment and that the employer and insurer cannot terminate the insurance without notice to the employee. Peters v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 279 Mich. 663, 273 N.W. 308; Edwards v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 177 S.W.2d 574; Ambrose v. Metropolitan, supra; Giesenhoff v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 296 N.W. 4; John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Pappageorgu, supra; Kolodziej v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Wells, supra; McDonald v. Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 186 A. 234; Grove v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 9 A.2d 723; Cipa v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 38 A.2d 518; Perkins v. Eagle Lock Co., 118 Conn. 658, 174 A. 77; Liner v. Travelers Ins. Co., 50 Ga.App. 643, 118 S.E. 383. (5) The employer was the agent of the insurance company and hence any delinquency on the part of the employer was the delinquency of the insurer and not of the insured. Beets v. Inter-Ocean Cas. Co., 20 S.W.2d 1040; Porter v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 71 S.W.2d 766; Pacific Mutual Ins. Co. v. Watson, 137 So. 414; Shanks v. Travelers Ins. Co., supra; Vories v. Aetna Ins. Co., 26 F.Supp. 722; All State Life Ins. Co. v. Tillman, 146 So. 393; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Florence, 171 S.E. 317; Brookshire v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 56 S.W.2d 817; Sullivan v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 110 S.W. 870; Whitmire v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 170 S.E. 118; Coker v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 119 S.E. 694; Greer v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 185 S.E. 68; General Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Gant, 119 S.W.2d 693. (6) Where the policy provides for conversion of the insurance within thirty-one days from the date of termination of employment the insured was covered for that period of time and died within the thirty-one days. Jones v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 39 A. 721; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Robbins, 179 Okla. 1, 64 P.2d 273; Dean v. Travelers Ins. Co., 23 P.2d 216; Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Hoover, 101 P.2d 632; Shanks v. Travelers Ins. Co., supra.

Powell B. McHaney, Frank P. Aschemeyer and Paul G. Ochterbeck amici curiae.

(1) Payment of premium alone does not give insured a "vested interest" in the group insurance contract. Dunnavant v. Mountain States Life Ins. Co., 67 S.W.2d 785; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, sec. 142; Fendler v Roy, 331 Mo. 1083, 58 S.W.2d 459. (2) Notice alone is...