Patek v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 09 January 1961
• Docket Number: O,No. 40,40
• Citation: 362 Mich. 292,106 N.W.2d 828
• Parties: Solomon W. PATEK, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation, Defendant and Appellant. ct. Term 1960.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 828

106 N.W.2d 828

362 Mich. 292

Solomon W. PATEK, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation,

Defendant and Appellant.

No. 40, Oct. Term 1960.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 9, 1961.

Ralph E. Helper, Detroit, Wright & Zinn, Ironwood, of counsel, for plaintiff and appellee.

Edward B. Harrison, Fischer, Sprague, Franklin & Ford, Detroit, Humphrey & Humphrey, Ironwood, Co-counsel, for defendant and appellant; George F. DeClaire, Detroit, of counsel.

Before the Entire Bench.

SOURIS, Justice (for reversal).

Aetna Life Insurance Company issued plaintiff a 30-year endowment life insurance policy in the principal sum of $25,000 in 1928. As a supplement thereto, the parties entered into an agreement which provided for payment of $250 per month in the event plaintiff should become totally and permanently disabled. This supplemental agreement required payment of an additional premium by plaintiff.

Beginning in May of 1953 plaintiff became totally disabled within the meaning of the supplemental agreement and was paid disability benefits in the sum of $250 per month until June 23, 1958, the thirtieth anniversary of the endowment policy. Defendant insurance company claims that the supplemental agreement expressly provides that the disability benefits shall be paid only during the period preceding maturity of the policy. Plaintiff, on the other hand, claims that he is entitled to receive disability benefits for as long as he remains totally disabled, even after the maturity date of the policy.

The trial court ruled that the language of the policy was obscure and ambiguous and, relying upon Turner v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 112 Mich. 425, 70 N.W. 898, 38 L.R.A. 529; Hooper v. State Mutual Life Assurance Co., 318 Mich. 384, 28 N.W.2d 331, and Ebert v. Prudential Insurance Co., 338 Mich. 320, 61 N.W.2d 164, the trial court resolved such ambiguity against the insurer and in favor of the insured. The language of the contract construed by the trial court appears in the supplemental agreement and reads as follows:

'Permanent Total Disability Provision

'If, before default in payment of premium and before the date of maturity of this policy, the insured becomes totally and permanently disabled by bodily injuries or disease and is thereby prevented from performing any work or conducting any business for compensation or profit, the following benefits will be available:

'A waiver of the payment of premiums falling due during such disability, and

'An income of ten dollars a month for each one thousand dollars of the original insurance payable to the life owner each month in advance during such disability and before the date of maturity of this policy.'

The crucial words controlling the rights of the parties hereto are the last words quoted above: 'and before the date of maturity of this policy.' The trial judge said that he was satisfied that in drafting the policy 'defendant intended that the disability benefits would cease upon maturity.' However, he continued, that the insurer should have said so in more...