Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Hale
Decision Date | 28 March 1935 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 609 |
Citation | 161 So. 248,230 Ala. 323 |
Parties | PROTECTIVE LIFE INS. CO. v. HALE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 2, 1935
Appeal from Circuit Court, Jefferson County; Roger Snyder, Judge.
Action on a group policy of insurance by Tom A. Hale against the Protective Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded.
Cabaniss & Johnston and L.D. Gardner, Jr., all of Birmingham, for appellant.
Taylor & Higgins, of Birmingham, for appellee.
By the group policy, issued to the Pioneer Insurance Club of the Republic Iron & Steel Company's employees, December 1 1929, and the certificate of insurance issued to plaintiff the defendant engaged to pay to the beneficiary designated by the plaintiff, and named in the policy, $2,000 in the event of plaintiff's death while the policy was in force, and also, "If any member insured under this policy shall furnish this company with due proof that before having attained the age of 60 years, he or she has become totally and permanently disabled by bodily injury or disease, and that he or she is then, and will be at all times thereafter, wholly prevented thereby from engaging in any gainful occupation, the company will pay to such member in full settlement of all obligations herein as to such member's life, the amount of insurance in force hereunder on such member at the time of the approval by the company of the proofs as aforesaid." (Italics supplied.)
The events which mature the policy, according to its provisions, are the death of the insured or his total permanent disability within the meaning of its total disability clause. McCutcheon, as Guardian, etc., v. All States Life Ins. Co. (Ala.Sup.) 158 So. 729. The total disability clause in the policy sued on is in the exact language of the total disability clause involved in McGifford v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 227 Ala. 588, 151 So. 349, and reaffirmed in the McCutcheon Case, supra.
Count A of the complaint, on which the case was tried, after setting out in haec verba said total disability clause, avers: (Italics supplied.)
The defendant demurred to this count on the ground that it does not aver that the policy, the basis of this suit, was in force and effect at the time plaintiff furnished proof of his disability, and the demurrer was overruled.
In McGifford v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 227 Ala. 588, 151 So. 349, involving the quoted provision in a policy issued by the defendant on the same date and to the same club the policy in suit was issued to, it was ruled that the furnishing of proof of disability by the insured to the company while the policy was effective and the insurance in force was a condition precedent to liability. The holding in that case was reaffirmed in McCutcheon, Guardian, etc., v. All States Life Insurance Company, supra.
The provisions of a policy of different import were considered in Ex parte Gilbreath Gray (Prudential Ins. Co. v. Gray), 159 So. 265 (Ala.Sup.), from which McGifford's Case was differentiated. See, also, Bergholm et al. v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 U.S. 489, 52 S.Ct. 230, 76 L.Ed. 416.
The furnishing of proof of total and permanent disability while the policy sued on was effective and the insurance was in force as to plaintiff, being a condition precedent to liability, the plaintiff had the burden of averring and proving performance of the condition. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Dorriety (Ala.Sup.) 157 So. 59; 13 C.J. 635, § 705; Marsicano v. City of Birmingham, 165 Ala. 405, 51 So. 608.
When the averments of count A are construed most strongly against the pleader, the averment that plaintiff "on, to-wit, the 15th day of March, 1933, while another group policy of insurance, issued by the defendant to the members of said Pioneer Insurance Club in lieu of said policy of insurance, was in force and effect as to plaintiff by reason of the payment of the premiums due thereon for plaintiff's insurance, and while plaintiff was so totally and permanently disabled as aforesaid, the plaintiff did furnish to the defendant due proof of such disability," falls short of showing that such proof was furnished under the policy in suit, or that the insurance which he seeks to recover was in force when such proof was so furnished. (Italics supplied.)
Assuming that group policy No. 180-G, certificate No. 1762, issued to the Pioneer Insurance Club, December 1, 1932, was in fact a renewal of the former group policy No. 149-G, certificate No. 1762, continuing in full force the insurance on plaintiff's life, with total permanent disability benefits, it is clear that plaintiff failed of compliance with the provision of the policy in respect to proof.
Plaintiff testified, ; that they (Protective Life Insurance Company) had not paid him anything;
The letter was written on a letterhead of "Protective Life Insurance Co., S.F. Clabaugh, Pres., Birmingham, Alabama," addressed to "A.L. Fairley, Secretary" and "Mr. Tom A. Hale" in respect to "G-180-1762," and read:
The plaintiff also offered as evidence the defendant's answers to interrogatories propounded under the statute. The answer relative to the proof of total permanent disability is:
This is all the evidence showed or tended to show on the question of plaintiff's furnishing proof of his disability. When it is viewed in its light most favorable to the plaintiff, it is clearly insufficient as showing that plaintiff furnished "due proof" that plaintiff had become "totally and permanently disabled by bodily injury or disease," and that he was then or would be "at all times thereafter, wholly prevented thereby from engaging in any gainful occupation" within the meaning of the policy, and it was wholly insufficient to warrant the jury in so finding. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Dorriety (Ala.Sup.) 157 So. 59.
Whether it be the death of the insured or his total disability that matures the contract, the insurer is liable for the full amount of the insurance; in this case $2,000.
In the respect just stated, the policy in the instant case is different from the policies considered in cases heretofore decided by this court involving clauses insuring against "permanent total disability."
In United States Casualty Co. v. Perryman, 203 Ala 212, 82 So. 462, the basis of the suit was an accident insurance policy providing "for the payment to the insured of $25 per week for total disablement, and of $12.50 per week for partial disablement." The question of permanent total...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Shears v. All States Life Ins. Co., 7 Div. 652.
... ... following authorities: Austin v. Metropolitan Life Ins ... Co., La.App., 142 So. 337; Pool v. Protective Life ... Ins. Co., 26 Ala.App. 161, 155 So. 631, 633; Davis ... v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 161 Tenn. 655, 32 S.W.2d ... 1034; Stoner v ... precedent to liability. McCutchen v. All States Life Ins ... Co., 229 Ala. 616, 158 So. 729; Protective Life Ins ... Co. v. Hale, 230 Ala. 323, 161 So. 248; Metropolitan ... Life Ins. Co. v. Phillips, 236 Ala. 259, 182 So. 35; ... Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Cole, 230 ... ...
-
Magee v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada
... ... railroad company ... Murray ... v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 110 So. 660 ... One of ... the rights given, at the termination of an employee's ... Continental ... Casualty Co. v. Hall, 118 Miss. 871, 80 So. 335; ... The Protective Life Assurance Co. v. Hale, 230 Ala ... 323, 161 So. 248; Equitable Life Assur. Society v ... ...
-
Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y. v. Brunson
... ... cancel a contract made by an insane person when there is no ... adequate remedy at law available. White v. Hale, 234 ... Ala. 385, 175 So. 288; Cox v. Parker, 212 Ala. 35, ... 101 So. 657; 12 C.J.S., Cancellation of Instruments, § 26, p ... He ... at it is not conclusive that he was not totally disabled ... Torrance case, supra, 228 Ala. 286, 153 So. 463; ... Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Hale, 230 Ala. 323, 161 ... So. 248; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Danley, supra ... Insured's ... activities in the business ... ...
-
Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Brantley
... ... expresses the intent of the parties, it will be so applied ... McGifford v. Protective Life Ins. Co., 227 Ala. 588, ... 151 So. 349; Northam v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co ... (Ala.Sup.) 163 So. 635; Irwin v. Baggett et al ... New ... York Life Ins. Co. v. Sinquefield (Ala.Sup.) 163 So ... 812; Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Hale, 230 Ala. 323, ... 161 So. 248 ... In the ... Sinquefield Case, supra, it is declared that the obligation ... to pay disability ... ...