Phillips v. New York Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 20 July 1931 |
| Docket Number | 8223. |
| Citation | 159 S.E. 696,173 Ga. 135 |
| Parties | PHILLIPS v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Life policy held to have lapsed for nonpayment of premium, where insurer refused requested extension of premium note and insured failed to accept counter proposition for settlement of note.
Under the facts alleged in the petition and as shown by uncontroverted evidence, the policy of life insurance, for cancellation of which this equitable proceeding was instituted, had lapsed when the application for reinstatement was made.
Willful misrepresentation of material facts, made to induce insurer to reinstate lapsed policy, will void policy (Civ. Code 1910 § 2481).
A willful misrepresentation of material facts, made by the assured in the application for reinstatement to induce the reinstatement of a policy of life insurance which has lapsed will void the policy.
Under the facts in the record and the rulings made above, the court did not err in directing the verdict for the petitioner.
Error from Superior Court, Treutlen County; Eschol Graham, Judge.
Suit by the New York Life Insurance Company against C. P. Phillips administrator, in which defendant filed a cross-petition. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
B. P Jackson, of Vidalia, for plaintiff in error.
A. S. Bradley and A. S. Bradley, Jr., both of Swainsboro, for defendant in error.
New York Life Insurance Company brought its petition against C. P. Phillips, administrator of the estate of Ethon L. Williamson, for cancellation of a policy of insurance upon the life of the intestate. The defendant filed an answer and cross-petition, wherein he prayed for a judgment against the plaintiff for the amount of insurance provided in the policy in question. At the conclusion of the hearing upon the pleadings and evidence submitted, the court directed a verdict for the insurance company, and the defendant excepted.
It appears from the allegations in the petition that on September 23, 1926, the company issued to the defendant's intestate a policy of insurance on the life of the latter in the sum of $2,500. The policy remained in force for one year, when the assured, being unable to pay the premium, signed a premium note and paid to the insurance company a certain amount of cash as consideration of the acceptance of the premium note. The note contained the provision that it was not enforceable as against the assured and was uncollectible after maturity, and could not become a charge against him. Upon maturity of such premium note, on April 23, 1928, the same was not paid, but the insurance company received a letter from the assured requesting that the payment of the premium note be postponed until October, 1928. This request was not granted, but on the same day the company forwarded to the assured a counter proposition, in which it was suggested that the assured execute another premium note due July 23, 1928, and also pay a small stipulated sum to the company along with the delivery of such note. The assured was also notified that April 23, 1928, was the last day of grace allowed under the policy. This offer of the company was not accepted by the assured, but he made application for reinstatement of his policy, and this application was submitted on May 7, 1928. The application for reinstatement contained, among other things, the statement that the assured was not at that time affected by any disease and had not within two years previously thereto consulted or been treated by any physician for any disease of any kind. The application contained also a certificate that the answers to the questions propounded therein were true and correct and that the company might rely upon them. Upon this application the assured obtained a reinstatement of the policy. Twelve days later, that is, on May 19, 1928, the assured died from an operation for dilatation and cutting of an urethral stricture.
Under the facts of this case, the contention of the insurance company that the policy of insurance in question lapsed for nonpayment of the premium, according to the contract and the note for premium given, is sound. Recognizing that the premium would lapse upon the maturity of the premium note on April 23, 1928, if the premium should not be paid on that date, taking into consideration the days of grace allowable under the contract, the assured wrote a letter to the insurance company requesting that the payment of the premium note be deferred until October, 1928. As stated above, this request was not granted by the company, but on the same day the company wrote to the assured a counter proposition of the settlement of the premium note. This...
To continue reading
Request your trial