Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Milton

• Decision Date: 12 March 1925
• Docket Number: 4659.
• Citation: 127 S.E. 140,160 Ga. 168
• Parties: PENN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. MILTON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

127 S.E. 140

160 Ga. 168

PENN MUT. LIFE INS. CO. v. MILTON.

No. 4659.

Supreme Court of Georgia

March 12, 1925

Syllabus by the Court.

If a policy of life insurance is capable of two constructions that interpretation will be placed upon it which is most favorable to the insured.

The word "permanent" does not always mean forever or lasting forever, but its meaning is to be construed according to its nature and in its relation to the subject-matter of the contract.

Where provisions of a policy of life insurance provide that if the insured, after one year's premium shall have been paid and before default in the payment of any subsequent premium shall furnish to the company due proof that, prior to the maturity of the policy and before attaining the age of 60, he has become wholly disabled by bodily injury or disease, so that he is and thereby will be permanently and continuously unable to engage in any occupation whatever for remuneration or profit, and that such disability has existed continuously for not less than 60 days prior to the furnishing of proof the company will waive the payment of the premiums which may thereafter become due under the policy during the continuance of such total disability, and will pay to the insured each month $50, the first monthly payment to be made six months after the receipt of due proof of the said total disability during the continuance of such total disability of the insured and prior to the maturity of the policy, a disability which has lasted for 16 months and from which the insured has recovered is a "permanent disability" within the meaning of the provisions of the policy.

Certified Questions from Court of Appeals.

Action by E. B. Milton against the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brought error to the Court of Appeals, which certified questions to the Supreme Court. Questions answered.

Randolph, Parker & Fortson, of Atlanta, and Branch & Snow, of Quitman, for plaintiff in error.

Bryan & Middlebrooks, of Atlanta, and H. W. Nelson, of Adel, for defendant in error.

HINES J.

The questions propounded by the Court of Appeals involve the construction of certain provisions in a policy of life insurance. One of these provisions is as follows:

"If * * * the insured shall furnish to the company due proof that * * * he has become wholly disabled by bodily disease, so that he is and thereby will be permanently and continuously unable to engage in any occupation whatever for remuneration or profit and that such disability has existed continuously for not less than sixty days prior to the furnishing of proof, thereupon the company will grant the following benefits."

Another of these provisions is as follows:

"The company by indorsement thereon shall waive the payment of premiums which thereafter may become due under this policy during the continuance of the said total disability of the insured."

Another is as follows:

"Furthermore, the company will pay to the insured each month fifty dollars, * * * the first monthly payment to be made six months after receipt of due proof of the said total disability, * * * and subsequent payments monthly thereafter during the continuance of said total disability of the insured and prior to the maturity of this policy."

The question is this:

"Could a disability which had lasted for only sixteen months and from which the insured then recovered be a 'permanent disability' within the meaning of these clauses of the policy?"

This court has adopted certain rules for its guidance in the construction of policies of insurance. If such a policy is capable of two constructions, that interpretation must be placed upon it which is most favorable to the insured....