Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas
Decision Date | 26 March 1931 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 633. |
Citation | 223 Ala. 106,134 So. 488 |
Parties | PROTECTIVE LIFE INS. CO. v. THOMAS. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 21, 1931.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Tuscaloosa County; Henry B. Foster Judge.
Action on a policy of life insurance by Jessie D. Thomas against the Protective Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Cabaniss Johnston, Cocke & Cabaniss, of Birmingham, and H. A. & D. K Jones, of Tuscaloosa, for appellant.
Livingston & Livingston, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.
This is an action on a policy of life insurance issued by the defendant to the plaintiff's husband, naming the plaintiff as the beneficiary. The policy in question is what is commonly known as a 20-payment participating policy, and it is shown without dispute that 20 full premiums had been paid, the last payment being made on the 27th of October, 1927, converting the policy into a "paid up" policy, by which the defendant engaged to pay to the named beneficiary $5000 on due proof of the death of the insured.
The evidence is also without dispute that the insured died on the 11th day of January, 1929, and no point was made on the trial or here as to the sufficiency of the proof of loss.
On December 27, 1927, the insured, in accordance with the provisions of the policy, obtained a loan of $2,770 from the defendant, and executed a "loan certificate with assignment of policy and agreement as to interest," and paid the interest thereon in advance up to the next anniversary of the policy-October 27, 1928.
The loan certificate, which embodies an assignment of the policy to the defendant as collateral security for the loan, stipulates:
Some thirty or more days before the 27th day of October, 1928, the defendant mailed to the insured a notice on a form usually issued to policyholders previous to the date premiums would mature, with the following written on the face thereof:
Interest on policy loan .. $166.20 Due date of premium,
Deduct Dividend ............ 48.00 27th day of Oct. 1928.
-------
On the reverse side of the notice was the following: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... 1023, 85 ... L.Ed. 1481, 134 A.L.R. 1462 ... "* ... * * Nothing in the Constitution requires a state to nullify ... its own protective standards because an enterprise regulated ... has its headquarters elsewhere. The power New York may ... exercise to regulate domestic insurance ... italicized as not authorizing the compounding of the ... interest. Protective Life Insurance Co. v. Thomas, ... 223 Ala. 106, 134 So. 488 ... The ... interpretation contended for by appellant is that the ... language "and all additions made ... ...
-
Taylor v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co.
...whatever of value he has received under the contract.' 224 Ala. at 673, 141 So. at 648, Headnote No. 2. In Protective Life Insurance Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 106, 134 So. 488 (1931), it was 'Forfeitures are looked upon by the courts with disfavor, and it is a rule of general application that......
-
Hunter-Benn & Co. Company v. Bassett Lumber Co., 1 Div. 700.
... ... Carter v ... Brownell Auto Co., supra; Protective Life Ins. Co. v ... Thomas (Ala. Sup.) 134 So. 488; 6 R. C. L. 744, § ... ...
-
Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fiquett
... ... mailed by the company," as provided for in the ... italicized proviso of paragraph VI, citing in support of this ... contention, Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 223 ... Ala. 106, 134 So. 488 ... The ... cited case involved a paid-up policy, and the controlling ... ...