Pack v. Progressive Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 March 1945
• Parties: Ola F. Pack v. Progressive Life Insurance Company, a Corporation
• Court: Kansas Court of Appeals

187 S.W.2d 501

239 Mo.App. 1

Ola F. Pack v. Progressive Life Insurance Company, a Corporation

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City

March 5, 1945

Appeal from Lafayette County; Hon. Robert D. Johnson, Judge.

Reversed and remanded.

E M. Arnold, Haymes & Dickey for appellant.

(1) The letters stipulated as written by plaintiff and insured to defendant, were a complete denial and repudiation of any conversation and a clear revocation of any pretended oral application for an automatic premium loan. Williston on Contracts (Rev. Ed.), Vol. 1, sec. 27; Page, Law of Contracts (2 Ed.), Vol. 1, secs. 84 and 85; 12 Am. Jur., p. 526, par 28; Dobbins v. City Bond, etc., 343 Mo. 1001, 124 S.W.2d 1111; State v. Robertson (Mo.), 191 S.W. 989; Cleaver v. Central States L. Ins. Co., 346 Mo. 548 142 S.W.2d 474, 481 (7, 8). (2) Letters written by the insured, constituted election of the insured to take the cash surrender value in the policies. Givens v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 59 S.W.2d 761; McCormick v. Travelers Ins. Co., 215 Mo.App. 258, 264 S.W. 916; Lipman v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 58 F.2d 15; Pacific States Ins. Co. v. Bryce, 67 F.2d 710; LaLonde v. Roman Standard Life Ins. Co., 269 Mich. 330, 257 N.W. 834; Fowler v. State Life Ins. Co. (La.), 160 So. 139; Northwestern Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Joseph (Ky.), 103 S.W. 317; Cooper v. West, 173 Ky. 289, 190 S.W. 1085; Tucker v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. (La.), 141 So. 71; Pequot Mfg. Co. v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 253 N.Y. 116, 170 N.E. 514; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kaiser, 10 So.2d 766; Lovett v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co., 44 F.Supp. 888; Ashbrook v. Phoenix Mut. L. Ins. Co., 94 Mo. 72. (3) The documentary evidence stands undisputed and the construction of it was for the court. Darlington Lumber Co. v. Railroad, 243 Mo. 224, 147 S.W. 1052; Wendorff v. Mo. State L. Ins. Co., 318 Mo. 363, 1 S.W.2d 99; Warren v. N. Y. L. Ins. Co., 182 S.W. 96; State ex rel. v. Allen, 337 Mo. 260, 85 S.W.2d 63; Gooden v. Mod. Woodmen, 194 Mo.App. 666, 189 S.W. 394; Kazee v. K. C. L. Ins. Co., 217 S.W. 339; Yarber v. Conn. Fire Ins. Co., 10 S.W.2d 957; Berne v. Prudential Ins. Co., 235 Mo.App. 178, 129 S.W.2d 92. (4) There is no evidence of a forfeiture or repudiation of the policies by the defendant and plaintiff's sole ground for recovery fails. Vail v. Midland Life Ins. Co., 108 S.W.2d 147; McCall v. Intern. L. Ins. Co., 196 Mo.App. 318, 193 S.W. 860; Biggs v. Modern Woodmen, 336 Mo. 879, 82 S.W.2d 898, (reversing 71 S.W.2d 783); Swinney v. Mod. Woodmen, 231 Mo.App. 83, 95 S.W.2d 655; Scotten v. Met. L. Ins. Co., 336 Mo. 724, 81 S.W.2d 313; Central States L. Ins. Co. v. Bloom, 345 Mo. 982, 137 S.W.2d 517; Lavin v. Grand Lodge, 112 Mo.App. 1, 86 S.W. 600; Lee v. Mo. State L. Ins. Co., 303 Mo. 492, 261 S.W. 83; Williams v. Liberty Nat. L. Ins. Co., 231 Mo.App. 239, 101 S.W.2d 109; Liederman v. Independent Order, 173 S.W.2d 848; Allen v. Nat. L. & Acc. Ins. Co., 228 Mo.App. 450, 67 S.W.2d 534; Leon et al. v. Barnsdall Zinc Co., 309 Mo. 276, 274 S.W. 699; Jose v. Aufderheide, 293 S.W. 476; Puckett v. Nat. Mut. Ann. Ass'n. 134 Mo.App. 501, 114 S.W. 1039. Provisions in insurance policies relating to loans by the company are divisible or independent provisions and a breach thereof, would not amount to a repudiation or forfeiture of the policies. 4 A. L. R. 895; Lewis v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 181 F. 433, 32 C. J. 1167 (Sec. 280); Harn v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co. (Okla.), 173 P. 214; Columbian Mut. L. Assur. Soc. v. Whitehead (Ark.), 101 S.W.2d 455. The burden was upon plaintiff to plead and prove that policies were in force on date of death, non-payment of premiums being admitted. Gibson v. Texas Prudential Ins. Co., 229 Mo.App. 867, 86 S.W.2d 400; Brann v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 226 S.W. 48; Eylar v. Prudential Ins. Co., 89 S.W.2d 150; Leeker v. Prudential Ins. Co., 154 Mo.App. 440; Globe Sec. Co. v. Gardner Mot. Co., 337 Mo. 177, 85 S.W.2d 561; Linville v. Ripley, 347 Mo. 95, 146 S.W.2d 581; Shell v. Conrad, 153 S.W.2d 384; Mitchell v. Amer. Mut. Ass'n., 226 Mo.App. 696, 46 S.W.2d 231; Park v. Fid. & Cas. Co., 279 S.W. 246. (5) Plaintiff's reply did not state facts sufficient to constitute a reply and there was no pleading upon which evidence could be offered that the policies were alive at the time of death. 49 C. J. 90, 380; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mo. 263; Leckie v. Bennett, 160 Mo.App. 145; State ex rel. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Shain et al., 334 Mo. 385, 66 S.W.2d 871; State ex rel. Continental Ins. Co. v. Becker et al., 336 Mo. 59, 77 S.W.2d 100; Rhoads v. Rhoads, 342 Mo. 934, 119 S.W.2d 247; Biggs v. Modern Woodmen, 336 Mo. 879, 82 S.W.2d 898; Grafeman Dairy Co. v. Northwestern Bank, 290 Mo. 311, 235 S.W. 435. (6) The burden of proof was on the plaintiff to show that the office girl was an agent of defendant authorized to bind the company and that the application was in writing. Johnson v. Hurley, 115 Mo. 513, 22 S.W. 492; Gibson v. Texas Prudential Ins. Co., 229 Mo.App. 867, 86 S.W.2d 400; Biggs v. Mod. Woodmen, 336 Mo. 879, 82 S.W.2d 898 (reversing 71 S.W.2d 783); Swinney v. Mod. Woodmen, 231 Mo.App. 83, 95 S.W.2d 655; West Pub. Co. v. Corbett, 165 Mo.App. 7, 145 S.W. 868; Johannes v. Union Fuel Co., 199 S.W. 1032; Patterson v. Prudential Ins. Co., 23 S.W.2d 198; Longley v. Met. L. Ins. Co., 48 S.W.2d 74; Clark v. John Hancock Mut. L. Ins. Co., 230 Mo.App. 593, 58 S.W.2d 484; Miles F. Bixler Co. v. Riney, 7 S.W.2d 396; Bennett v. Royal Union Mut. L. Ins. Co., 232 Mo.App. 1027, 112 S.W.2d 134; Owens v. Wash. Fid. Nat. L. Ins. Co., 64 S.W.2d 293; Mitchell v. Met. L. Ins. Co., 116 S.W.2d 186; Globe & Rutgers Fire Ins. Co. v. McGinnis, 29 F.2d 357. (7) The actions of the court were prejudicial to the defendant and the sustention by the court of defendant's objection to the remark of said attorney did not and could not cure the errors committed. Section 1118, R. S. Mo., 1939; Dorman v. East St. Louis Ry. Co., 335 Mo. 1082, 75 S.W.2d 854, 859 (1, 2); Palmer v. Hygrade Water & Soda Co., 151 S.W.2d 548. (8) The giving of plaintiff's instruction No. 1 and No. 2 constituted reversible error. 64 C. J. 531; Hawes v. Am. Cent. Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 479; Lorie v. Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co., 8 S.W.2d 81; Davis v. Luehrman Hardwood Lbr. Co., 212 Mo.App. 693, 246 S.W. 66. There is no evidence to support the instructions. Stout v. Indep. Order of For., 115 S.W.2d 32. Mitchell v. Chicago & Alton Ry. Co., 108 Mo.App. 142, 83 S.W. 289; Cases under Point V above; Blodgett v. Perry, 97 Mo. 263; Leckie v. Bennett, 160 Mo.App. 145. Instructions, wholly excluded the defense of insured's election to take the cash value, and authorized a verdict wholly without regard to them. Bouligny v. Met. L. Ins. Co., 133 S.W.2d 1094; Blackwell v. Railroad, 331 Mo. 34, 52 S.W.2d 814; Dalametter v. Home Ins. Co., 233 Mo.App. 645, 126 S.W.2d 262. Said instructions were confusing and misleading to the jury, and gave the jury a roving commission. Jennings v. Cooper, 230 S.W. 325, 327; Foster v. Aetna L. Ins. Co., 176 S.W.2d 482; Girvin v. Met. L. Ins. Co., 84 S.W.2d 644; Maclin v. Fogel Const. Co., 326 Mo. 38, 31 S.W.2d 14, 19; State v. Trimble, 318 Mo. 173, 300 S.W. 812, 813-14; Webb v. Byrd, 203 Mo.App. 589, 219 S.W. 683; Bouligny v. Met. L. Ins. Co., 133 S.W.2d 1094; Blackwell v. Railroad, 331 Mo. 34, 52 S.W.2d 814; Dalametter v. Home Ins. Co., 233 Mo.App. 645, 126 S.W.2d 262.

Ike Skelton, White & Hall for respondent.

(1) Appellant's forfeiture of the policies was illegal and void. Hawkins v. Washington Fed. Ins. Co., 78 S.W.2d 543; Newman v. John Hancock Ins. Co., 7 S.W.2d 1015; Klinkhardt v. Crescent Ins. Co., 47 S.W.2d 210; Pittman v. Mo. State Life, 12 Tenn.App. 228. (2) The insured's subsequent request for the cash values did not waive the company's wrongful forfeiture. Fidelity Mut. Life v. Heltsley (Ark.), 71 S.W.2d 1017; Murphree v. Nat'l Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 150 So. 534; Magruder v. U.S., 32 F.2d 807, 13 C. J. 287, 289; Illinois Bankers Ins. v. Wilken (Ark.), 59 S.W.2d 1046. (3) The court properly permitted evidence of waiver under the pleadings. Beall v. North Mo. Ins. Co., 99 S.W.2d 492; State ex rel. v. Allen, 78 S.W.2d 862; Williams v. Conn. Ins. Co., 47 S.W.2d 207. (4) The policy provision requiring a signed application for the automatic premium loan could be waived. Block v. U.S. Fidelity Ins. Co., 290 S.W. 429; Owen v. Washington Fidelity Ins. Co., 64 S.W.2d 293; Bergerson v. General Ins. Co., 105 S.W.2d 1015; Bennett v. Standard Accident Ins. Co., 264 S.W. 27. (5) Appellant's appeal being vexatious the statutory penalty should be assessed against it. 1230 R. S. Mo., 1939; Bronzon v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 143 S.W.2d 336; Prudential Ins. Co. v. German Mutual, 142 S.W.2d 500.

OPINION

Cave, J.

This is an action on two identical life insurance policies, each insuring the life of O. E. Pack in the sum of $ 1000. Plaintiff, the wife of insured, was named beneficiary. There was a judgment for plaintiff in the aggregate sum of $ 2338.84, from which defendant appeals.

It is insisted that the appeal should be dismissed for the reason the statement contained in appellant's brief does not comply with our rules.

The statement is longer than necessary and gives more prominence to the correspondence had between the parties than to the evidence of the plaintiff. However, the evidence of plaintiff is fairly stated. The facts are unusual and appellant, no doubt, thought it was necessary to give a somewhat extended history of the case. While, we think it was unnecessary for so much to be stated, we are able to get a fair understanding of the case from the statement, and do not think the penalty of dismissal should be imposed. [Nowlin v. Kansas City Public Service Co., 58 S.W.2d 324.] The motion to dismiss the appeal is overruled.

Plaintiff's ...