Norris v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 24 November 1916
• Docket Number: 4 Div. 620
• Parties: NORRIS v. NEW ENGLAND MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

73 So. 377

198 Ala. 41

NORRIS v. NEW ENGLAND MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

4 Div. 620

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 24, 1916

Rehearing Denied Dec. 30, 1916

Appeal from Circuit Court, Houston County; H.A. Pearce, Judge.

Action by Allene Louise Norris against the New England Mutual Life Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

T.M Espy and Farmer & Farmer, all of Dothan, for appellant.

Knox Acker, Dixon & Stewart, of Talladega, for appellee.

GARDNER J.

It appears without dispute that the initial premium on the policy, the subject of this suit, was in the sum of $83.70 payable in quarterly installments; and that for its payment the assured executed four promissory notes, the first being payable to the soliciting agent of the insurance company 60 days after date, the note reciting that it was given to reimburse the agent for actual money paid by him to the company. This note was discounted by the general agent of the company, and the company received its pro rata share thereof. The three other notes were payable to the company direct, and were due in three, six, and nine months, respectively. The insured died on May 16, 1914, and none of these notes, nor any part thereof, were ever paid, but were retained by the defendant company.

We are of the opinion that the case of Satterfield v. Fidelity Mut. L.I. Co., 171 Ala. 429, 55 So. 200, is decisive of this appeal adversely to the appellant. The two cases are strikingly analogous, and we are unable to see wherein there exists any material difference between them. The application for insurance formed a part of the policy in each case. A comparison of the contract and various policy provisions will disclose a close similarity in all essential details. It was argued in the Satterfield Case that the reference in the policy to forfeiture for nonpayment of premium had no application to the initial premium, in this contention relying upon the case of McAllister v. New Eng. L.I. Co., 101 Mass. 558, 3 Am.Rep. 404. Like argument is here presented. The McAllister Case received comment by this court in the Satterfield Case, and under that authority we hold that the forfeiture clause is applicable to the initial premium.

We are also clear to the view, under the authority of the Satterfield Case, and of the undisputed evidence in this case, that the provisions of section 4579, Code 1907, have not been infringed upon by the conclusion here reached. As stated in the opinion in that case, the purpose of that statute "is to protect the person insured from being overreached by agreements outside of the policy not fully understood by him." The application is a part of the policy contract, and the language of the contract is plain and clearly shows that the assured could not have been misled or deceived thereby. The applicant knew he had not paid the initial premium, but had merely given notes which had not been paid. The receipt given him at the time of the issuance of the policy again gave him notice that a nonpayment of the notes would work a forfeiture of the policy, and the notes themselves so recited. The letters written the assured by the general agent called his attention to the same fact and informed him in what manner the policy could be reinstated.

...