Parker v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 January 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 18620.,18620. |
| Citation | 112 S.W.2d 885 |
| Parties | PARKER v. ATLANTA LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Marion D. Waltner, Judge.
"Not to be published in State Reports."
Action by Emma Parker against the Atlanta Life Insurance Company on a policy of life insurance. From an adverse judgment, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Carl R. Johnson, of Kansas City, for appellant.
James H. Herbert and James D. Pouncey, both of Kansas City, for respondent.
CAMPBELL, Commissioner.
The defendant issued to Clem Parker a policy of life insurance in the sum of $1,000 under date of April 15, 1925. Plaintiff, wife of the insured, was the beneficiary. The insured died January 25, 1932. Plaintiff in due time furnished proof of death. It may be inferred from the record that defendant denied liability on the ground that the policy lapsed for the nonpayment of premium more than four years prior to the death of the insured. Thereafter plaintiff brought this suit to recover on the policy. The cause was tried to a jury and plaintiff had a verdict and judgment for $1,199.50, of which $199.50 was interest. The defendant has appealed.
The errors assigned are that the court should have sustained defendant's request for directed verdict; and that the court erred in overruling defendant's objections to the introduction of Plaintiff's Exhibit 2, a receipt for premium due October 15, 1929.
The policy provided for the payment of a quarterly premium in the sum of $9.15.
The plaintiff testified that she paid a premium each quarter from the date of the policy to and including the payment of a quarterly premium on October 15, 1929, and that no premiums were paid thereafter.
The substance of defendant's evidence was that its records show that the premiums were paid quarterly to and including a premium due October 10, 1927, and that there were no further payments. The defendant's evidence further tends to show that C. W. Webber, to whom plaintiff testified she paid a premium in October, 1929, had not been its agent since October of the preceding year. Witnesses for the defendant testified that certain exhibits introduced in evidence were records of the defendant. There is nothing in such records showing that Webber was defendant's agent subsequent to October, 1928. There was expert opinion evidence on defendant's behalf to the effect that there had been an erasure on plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and the figure 9 placed in the erasure.
The policy shows that, when four annual premiums had been paid, the terms of extended insurance was 6 years and 87 days.
The defendant argues that its records and oral evidence conclusively show that no premium was paid after the latter part of the year 1927, and for that reason the court should have directed the jury to find in its favor.
The defense of forfeiture for nonpayment of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hill v. Connecticut Mut. Ins. Co. of Hartford
... 146 S.W.2d 651 235 Mo.App. 752 MARY I. HILL, RESPONDENT, v. THE CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, APPELLANT Court of Appeals of Missouri, Kansas City January 6, 1941 ... (1) The ... verdict was fully supported by the evidence. Parker v ... Atlanta Life Ins. Co., 112 S.W.2d 885; Foster v ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 223 ... ...
-
Wilson v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
... ... of law by defendant's evidence. Hence the issues were ... properly submitted to the jury. Parker v. Atlanta Life ... Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 112 S.W.2d 885, 886; Girvin v ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.), 75 S.W.2d 596, ... 597, 599; ... ...
-
Hill v. Connecticut Mut. Ins. Co. of Hartford
...v. Missouri Ins. Co., Mo.App., 46 S.W.2d 959; Wilson v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 233 Mo.App. 1006, 128 S.W.2d 319; Parker v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 112 S.W.2d 885; Foster v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., Mo. App., 233 S.W. 499. Neither plaintiff nor insured was a party to defendant......
-
Baugh v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn.
...of the case. Quite the converse is true here, for the burden is on the defendant to prove its affirmative defense. Parker v. Atlanta Life Ins. Co., Mo.App., 112 S.W.2d 885; Wilson v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co., 233 Mo.App. 1006, 128 S.W.2d 319. In the other case of this court to which we are......