Nick v. Travelers Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 January 1945
• Citation: 185 S.W.2d 326,238 Mo.App. 1181
• Parties: Marguerite A. Nick v. Travelers Insurance Company
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

185 S.W.2d 326

238 Mo.App. 1181

Marguerite A. Nick v. Travelers Insurance Company

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

January 22, 1945

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

Affirmed and transferred to Supreme Court.

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

(1) (a) The court erred in refusing to give the defendant's peremptory instruction "A" offered at the close of plaintiff's evidence, and erred in refusing defendant's requested peremptory instruction "B" offered at the close of all of the evidence because plaintiff had the burden of proving, that the insurance was in effect at the time of Nick's death; that it had not been cancelled, that the premium was paid to carry it in force; that his employer had not notified the insurance company that his employment had ceased; that if his lay off was only temporary his employer had not elected to treat it as a termination thereof. Williams v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 154 S.W.2d 426; Crawford v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 167 S.W.2d 915, 924; White v. Prudential Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 127 S.W.2d 98; Williams v. Sun Life Ins. Co., 235 (Mo. App.) 741 148 S.W.2d 112; Magee v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 62 N.D. 614, 244 N.W. 518; Kowalski v. Aetna Life Ins Co. (Mass.), 165 N.E. 476, 63 A. L. R. 1035. (b) The Tea Company was the agent of Nick for the purpose of notifying the insurance company of the termination of the employment and insurance and its notification to the insurance company is binding on him. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson (Ark.), 160 S.W.2d 852, 855; Longley v. Prudential Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 161 S.W.2d 27; White v Prudential Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 127 S.W.2d 98, 103. (2) The court erred in refusing to give the defendant's peremptory instructions "A" and "B" for the reason the suit was based upon the claim for total permanent disability benefits, and there was no proof to support the petition. Suit could only be founded upon the group policy and could not rest upon the individual certificate. Williams v. Sun Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 148 S.W.2d 112, l. c. 114. The petition, declaring as it did upon the total permanent disability benefit provision, would not permit of recovery upon the death benefit provision. Williams v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 154 S.W.2d 426. The plaintiff pleaded one state of facts as her cause of action, namely an alleged right to recover for total disability benefits, and attempted to recover under the life provision. She therefore failed in her proof. Robertson v. Vandalia Trust Co., 228 Mo.App. 1172, 66 S.W.2d 193, l. c. 198; Mark v. Cooperage Co., 204 Mo. 242, 262, 103 S.W. 20; Henry County v. Citizens' Bank, 208 Mo. 209, 225, 106 S.W. 622; Dimick v. Snyder (Mo. App.), 34 S.W.2d 1004. The court erred in giving plaintiff's instruction No. 1 for the reason that the instruction was not within the pleadings and submitted a case which was not stated in the petition. Degonia v. R. Co., 224 Mo.App. l. c. 589, 123 S.W. 807; State ex rel. National Newspaper Assn. v. Ellison, 176 S.W. l. c. 13; State ex rel. Central Coal & Coke Co. v. Ellison, 270 Mo. 645, 195 S.W. 722. The instruction failed to submit the question of whether a premium had been paid; whether the insurance had been cancelled; and whether the employer had elected to treat the so-called temporary layoff as a termination of the employment. White v. Prudential Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 127 S.W.2d 98; Pandjiris v. Oliver Cadillac Co., 339 Mo. 726, 98 S.W.2d 978; State ex rel. Lusk v. Ellison, 271 Mo. 463, 196 S.W. 1088; Alexander v. K. C. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 231 S.W. 66, 68; Hopkins v. Mobile O. R. Co. (Mo. App.), 33 S.W.2d 1009, 1010, 1011.

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

(1) The court properly submitted this cause to the jury under the prima facie rule applicable in insurance cases and also because plaintiff proved coverage to the date of insured's death. (a) Plaintiff made a prima facie case under the record herein and the burden then shifted to the defendant to prove absence of coverage. Payne v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 231 Mo.App. 528 102 S.W.2d 732; White v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 235 Mo.App. 156, 127 S.W.2d 98; Cooper v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 94 S.W.2d 1070; Dudley v. Clark, 255 Mo. 570, 164 S.W. 608; State ex rel. Pollock v. Becker, 209 Mo. 660, 233 S.W. 641; Girvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 S.W.2d 644. (b) Plaintiff proved coverage as to insured's employment and the defendant admitted or proved the payment of the premium. Section 3245, R. S. Mo., 1939 (sec. 2958, R. S., 1929); White v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 235 Mo.App. 156, 127 S.W.2d 98; State ex rel. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assoc. v. Trimble, 334 Mo. 920, 68 S.W.2d 685. Laupheimer v. Massachusetts Life Ins. Co., 224 Mo.App. 1018, 24 S.W.2d 1058; State ex rel. Mills Lumber Co. v. Trimble, 327 Mo. 899, 39 S.W.2d 355; Zeigler v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of the United States, 219 Ia. 872, 259 N.W. 769; Moss v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 230 Mo.App. 70, 84 S.W.2d 395; State ex rel. v. Hostetter, 338 Mo. 589, 92 S.W.2d 122; Smith v. Ohio Millers' Mutual Fire Ins. Co., 330 Mo. 326, 49 S.W.2d 42; Equitable Life Assur. Society of the United States v. Larocco, 68 F.2d 451 (C. C. A. 3); Ozanich v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 119 Pa.Super. 52, 180 A. 67; Emerick v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 120 Conn. 60, 179 A. 335; Butler v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of U.S., 93 S.W.2d 1019; Givens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 59 S.W.2d 761; Williams v. Aetna, 154 S.W.2d 426; Smithart v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 167 Tenn. 513, 71 S.W.2d 1059. (2) Employment is a status; absence from work or irregular work is not a termination of employment and such employment cannot be terminated by the employer without notice to the employee. Donet v. Prudential Ins. Co., 23 S.W.2d 1105; Mathews v. Modern Woodmen of America, 236 Mo. 326, 139 S.W. 151; Emerick v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 179 A. 335; Pearson v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 194 S.E. 661; Peters v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 279 Mich. 663, 273 N.W. 307; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Castle, 252 Ky. 228, 67 S.W.2d 17; All State Life Ins. Co. v. Tillman, 226 Ala. 245, 146 So. 393; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Pope, 193 Ark. 157, 97 S.W.2d 914; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Sweet, 253 Ky. 643, 69 S.W.2d 748; Deese v. Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn., 204 N.C. 214, 167 S.E. 797; Porter v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 71 S.W.2d 766; Butler v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 93 S.W.2d 1019; Leavens v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 197 A. 309; Travelers Ins. Co. v. Conine, 140 S.E. 784; Ozanich v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 A. 67; Cogsdill v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S., 158 S.C. 371, 155 S.E. 747. (3) The insured having paid a substantial portion of the premiums was entitled to notice of cancellation and in the absence of such notice, plaintiff could recover. Butler v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S., 233 Mo.App. 94, 93 S.W.2d 1019; Poch v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of the U.S., 343 Pa. 119, 22 A.2d 590; Thompson v. Pacific Mills, 141 S.C. 303, 139 S.E. 619, 65 A. L. R. 1237 Powell v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 173 S.C. 50, 174 S.E. 649; Johnson v. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co., 112 W.Va. 396, 164 S.E. 411; Deese v. Travelers Ins. Co., 204 N.C. 214, 167 S.E. 797; Smithart v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 167 Tenn. 513, 71 S.W.2d 1059, Annotation, 105 A. L. R. 430; 29 Am. Jur., Ins. sec. 1382; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Dullett, 69 S.W.2d 1068; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Ferguson, 180 S.E. 503, 504; Davis v. Metropolitan, 32 S.W.2d 1034; Hentzler v. Equitable, 61 Ohio 140, 42 N.E.2d 451; Aetna v. Wilson (Okla.), 123 P.2d 656; Miller v. Travelers, 143 Pa.Super. 270, 17 A.2d 907; Wright v. Prudential, 27 Cal.App. (2d) 195, 80 P.2d 752. (4) The employer under the contract herein was obligated to pay the premiums upon the master policy until the employee's service terminated with notice to the employee or until discontinued upon the written notice of the employee; hence, a failure to collect from the employee is immaterial and the premiums are subject to adjustment. Beets v. Inter-Ocean Casualty Co., 20 S.W.2d 1040; Emerick v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 179 A. 335; Shay v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 198 N.E. 909; Ozanich v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 119 Pa.Super. 52, 180 A. 67; Mo. State Life Ins. Co. v. Compton, 73 S.W.2d 1079; Baldwin, et al. v. Scott County Milling Company, 343 Mo. 915, 122 S.W.2d 890; 41 C. J. 17; Treece State Bank v. Wade et al., 283 S.W. 714; Dilling v. Chelsea Marble Works, 62 Misc. 479, 115 N.Y.S. 1096; Payne v. Universal Life Ins. Co., 102 S.W. 732. (5) Decedent was still insured under the Policy and Certificate because neither the thirty-one days permitted in which to convert his insurance after the alleged termination of his employment on September 17, 1932, nor the thirty-one days grace for the payment of his portion of the premium had elapsed at the time of his death. Travelers Ins. Co. v. Fox, 155 Md. 210, 141 A. 547; Zeigler v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of the United States, 219 Ia. 872, 259 N.W. 770; Porter v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of the United States, 71 S.W.2d 756; Emerick v. Connecticut General Life Ins. Co., 120 Conn. 60, 179 A. 335; Ozanich v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 180 A. 67; Butler v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of the United States, 233 Mo.App. 94, 93 S.W.2d 1019; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Poliakoff, 123 N. J. E. 524, 198 A. 852; Woehr v. Travelers Ins. Co., 134 N. J. E. 38, 34 A.2d 136; Poch v. Equitable Life Assur. Society of the U.S. (Pa.), 343 Pa. 119, 22 A.2d 590; Shears v. All-State Life Ins. Co. (Ala.), 5 So.2d 808; Kloidt v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 18 N. J. Misc. 661, 16 A.2d...