Plunkett v. Conclave

• Decision Date: 14 June 1906
• Citation: 55 S.E. 9,103 Va. 643
• Parties: PLUNKETT . v. SUPREME CONCLAVE, IMPROVED ORDER OF HEPTASOPHS.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

55 S.E. 9

103 Va. 643

PLUNKETT .

v.SUPREME CONCLAVE, IMPROVED ORDER OF HEPTASOPHS.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 14, 1906.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 13, 1906.

1. Insurance — Mutual Benefit Society — Contract — Subsequent Amendments to By-Laws—Pleading—Admissions by Demurrer.

In an action on a benefit certificate conditioned on the insured complying with the laws then in force and those thereafter adopted, a plea alleged that after the issuance of the certificate a new law, providing that no benefit should be paid to the beneficiary of any member committing suicide, sane or insane, etc., was enacted. Held, that a demurrer admitted the regular enactment of the new law so that it became operative retrospectively except as to rights which had become vested.

2. Same—Defense of Suicide.

A demurrer to a plea in an action on a benefit certificate, alleging that the insured committed suicide, and died from the effects of a pistol wound inflicted by himself with suicidal intent, admits that the insured committed suicide while sane.

A mutual benefit certificate, silent on the subject of suicide of the member, was conditioned on his complying with the laws then in force and those that might be adopted. After the issuance of the certificate, the society adopted a new law, providing that no benefit should be paid the beneficiary of a member committing suicide, sane or insane. Held, that the beneficiary could not recover on the certificate on the member committing suicide while sane.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in_point, see vol. 28, Cent. Dig. Insurance, § 1855.]

Appeal from Circuit Court of City of Richmond.

Action by Estelle V. Plunkett against the Supreme Conclave, Improved Order of Heptasophs. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. H. Sands and C. R. Sands, for plaintiff.

Wm. & Henry Flegenheimer, for defendant.

KEITH, P. "It appears from the record that Charles W. Plunkett applied for membership in the Improved Order of Heptasophs on June 28, 1897, and in his application he agreed 'to conform in all respects to the laws, rules and usages of the order now in force or which may hereafter be adopted by the same.' Upon said application he was admitted as a member, and on the 12th day of August, 1897, a benefit certificate for the sum of two thousand ($2,000) dollars was issued him, his wife, Estelle V. Plunkett, beneficiary. This certificate was delivered and accepted, 'upon the condition that the said brother herein complies with the laws, rules and regulations now governing said conclave and benefit fund, or that may, in the future, be enacted by the Supreme Conclave to govern said conclave and fund.' At the time Plunkett applied for membership, and at the time the benefit certificate was delivered to him, there was no by-law of the company in regard to the suicide.

"At the session of the Supreme Conclave, held in June, 1903, section 257 of constitution and by-laws was enacted. This section provided as follows: 'No benefit shall be paid to the beneficiary or beneficiaries of any member committing suicide (sane or insane); provided, however, that where such suicide has completed one year of membership (although the Supreme Conclave shall by his act be released from all claims represented by the benefit certificate) his beneficiary or beneficiaries shall, nevertheless, receive from the Supreme Conclave a sum of money in full discharge of all demands which he, she, or they might otherwise have had upon said Supreme Conclave equal to the equitable proportion of the total benefit, such equity to be determined by the number of years the suicide was a member of the order as related to his expectancy of life when admitted.' This by-law was in force on the 9th day of August, 1903, upon whichday Charles W. Plunkett committed suicide, and died from the effects of a pistol shot wound Inflicted by himself with suicidal intent

"The beneficiary upon proper proofs of death, made a demand for the face value of the benefit certificate, to wit, the sum of $2,000. The demand was refused, and thereupon she brought her action.

"The defendants tendered two special pleas. The first alleged that in the application and also in the benefit certificate that Charles W. Plunkett promised to conform in all respects to the laws, etc., in force at the time of said application and benefit certificate, and those thereafter to be adopted; that section 257 had been thereafter adopted, and that the said Plunkett committed suicide, and died from the effects of a pistol wound inflicted by himself with suicidal intent. The second plea set forth the above facts, and in addition thereto, that in accordance with section 257 the defendant was indebted to the plaintiff in the sum of $333.34, and that on the day when the said sum became due the defendant tendered the plaintiff said sum; that the plaintiff wholly refused to accept; and that the defendant has ever been, and still is, ready to pay the said plaintiff the said sum, which the defendant brought and paid into court To both of these pleas the plaintiff demurred.

"It was contended, in support of said demurrer, that the by-law interfered with rights which had become fixed and vested by the terms of the original contract. The demurrer admits that its enactment was regular and in accordance with the provisions of the defendant's constitution, and by the express terms of the contract between the plaintiff's husband and the defendant the former agreed to comply 'with all the laws, rules and regulations now governing said conclave and benefit fund, or that in the future may be enacted by the Supreme Conclave to govern the said conclave and fund.' Therefore, the bylaws regularly adopted by the defendant became retrospective as well as prospective in their operation, except as to the rights which had become fixed and vested by the terms of the original contract In the...