Perkins v. Eagle Lock Co.

• Decision Date: 16 July 1934
• Citation: 118 Conn. 658,174 A. 77
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: PERKINS v. EAGLE LOCK CO.

174 A. 77

118 Conn. 658

PERKINS v. EAGLE LOCK CO.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

July 16, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Litchfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.

Action by Etta L. Perkins against the Eagle Lock Company for the recovery of an amount alleged to be due on a benefit certificate issued by the defendant, brought to the superior court, where a demurrer to the complaint was overruled and thereafter the case was tried to the court and judgment rendered for the plaintiff, from which the defendant appealed.

No error.

Epaphroditus Peck, of Bristol, for appellant.

S Russell Mink and Frederick W. Beach, both of Bristol, for appellee.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, HINMAN, AVERY, and PEASLEY JJ.

HAINES, Judge.

The facts established by the finding are not questioned upon this appeal, and are, in substance, that the defendant, a manufacturing corporation located at Terryville, in this state, issued and delivered to its employees in June, 1923 an undertaking in writing called a " Certificate of Benefit," together with a letter of transmission setting forth, among other things, the reasons for the issuance of the certificate and an explanation of the plan and its purpose, operation, and effect. The plaintiff is the widow of Albert L. Perkins, who as an employee received one of these certificates in which the plaintiff's name appears as the beneficiary, " should the death of said employee occur while in the employ of said Eagle Lock Company." Save for the names of the employee and the beneficiary, the certificate and letter of transmission are the same as those set forth at length in our decision in Tilbert v. Eagle Lock Co., 116 Conn. 357, 165 A. 205.

At the time the certificate was received, Perkins was about 68 years of age and had been in the defendant's employ for four years; he continued to work regularly until May 2, 1927, when he was taken sick at the factory and was assisted to a doctor for medical attention and thence to his home; there on May 3d he suffered a slight shock and on the advice of his physician went with his wife to Norwalk for a rest the latter part of June. While there the following letter was sent to the defendant:

" Norwalk, Conn. July 1st, 1927.

" Mr. Clowe

" Sir: This is Mrs. Perkins writing. Probably you know Mr. Perkins has been out ill since May 2. He wrote his boss Mr. Beaton that he would come in as soon as he was able to. He expected to be able to come in by the 5th, but altho he is much better, the Dr. says he ought to wait a week or two more, so as not to get a set back. If it will not be all right, please drop us a card and Mr. Perkins says he will try to get down there.

" Mrs. Albert Perkins

" R.F.D. # 61-Box 140, Norwalk, Conn."

The following letter was received in reply:

" July 5, 1927

" Mrs. Albert Perkins, R. F. D. #61-Box 140, Norwalk, Conn.

" Dear Madam: We have your letter of July 1st in reference to Mr. Perkins. Business is not very good and for that reason we are none too busy with the help we already have in the department where Mr. Perkins formerly worked. We regret to state that we will be unable to give Mr. Perkins work even if he should return immediately and conditions do not promise to improve very soon.

" Very truly

" Eagle Lock Company, " By Harry C. Clowe, Employment Manager."

On July 27, 1927, having returned to Terryville, Perkins suffered another and more severe shock and was unable to work to the time of his death, October 24, 1930. After the receipt of the letter of July 5th, there was no communication between the defendant and the plaintiff and her husband. Without their request, an employee of the defendant two months before his death brought Perkins' apron and personal effects from the factory to their home. The defendant's paymaster kept a list of employees which included the name of Perkins, and on it was written in pencil " Sick, 6/14.27." Between the 10th and 17th of September, 1927, the word " through" was written in red ink opposite Perkins' name. His name also appeared on the defandant's pay roll sheets with his wage rating until the week beginning September 27, 1927, but not thereafter. The defendant's employment manager kept a card index of employees, and at some time after the foregoing correspondence the paymaster inserted after the word " left" on the back of the card the figures " 1927." No cause of discharge or reason for leaving was noted on this card, nor did any records of the defendant contain any notation of the discharge of Perkins for cause. None of these notations were brought to the attention of Perkins or his wife, and they never had knowledge of them or of the facts purported to be recorded by the defendant. On this state of facts, the court gave judgment for the plaintiff, and, as stated in the defendant's brief, " The present case raises the single question *** was the deceased in the defendant's =employ' at the time of his death, within the meaning of that term as used in the certificate."

The defendant makes a threefold claim in its brief: (a) That the word " employ" as used in the certificate means actual employment rather than a status of employment; (b) that the provision in the certificate for the payment of the benefit to one who has become totally disabled and permanently, continuously, and wholly prevented thereby for life from engaging in any occupation " took such a situation out of the provision for his death while in the employ of the company, even if it might otherwise have been deemed to be included within that phrase" ; and (c) that the correspondence quoted must...