Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Singletary

• Decision Date: 22 September 1931
• Docket Number: Case Number: 20841
• Citation: 1931 OK 558,3 P.2d 657,151 Okla. 301
• Parties: PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA v. SINGLETARY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1931 OK 558

3 P.2d 657

151 Okla. 301

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. OF AMERICA v. SINGLETARY.

Case Number: 20841

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: September 22, 1931

Syllabus

¶0 1. Insurance--Life Policy--Action for Disability Benefits -- Question of Fact -- Conclusiveness of Findings.

In an action on an insurance policy which provides for monthly payments, where the insured becomes permanently and totally disabled, the question of whether or not the insured is permanently and totally disabled is a question of fact, and the verdict of the jury will not be disturbed by this court on appeal where there is competent evidence tending to support the verdict and finding of the jury.

2. Same--Date of Payments to Commence from Date of Disability.

An insurance policy which provides if the insured shall furnish due proof to the company that, while this policy was in full force and effect, he (or she) at any time after the payment of the first premium on this policy, and before attaining 60 years of age, from any cause whatsoever had become permanently disabled, the company will, during such disability, pay to the insured, at the home office of the company, the amount insured, less any indebtedness, in 120 monthly installments during ten years, each installment of the amount of $ 9.74 per $ 1,000 of insurance payable, the first installment to become payable immediately upon receipt of by the company of such proof of disability. Held, that under this policy the date of the payments date from the date of permanent disability and not from the date proof of said disability was furnished the company.

Appeal from Court of Common Pleas, Tulsa County; S. J. Clendenning, Judge.

Action by Edward P. Singletary against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Mason, Williams & Lynch, for plaintiff in error.

C. B. Stuart, C. A. Coakley, E. J. Doerner, and B. A. Hamilton, for defendant in error.

CLARK, V. C. J.

¶1 This action was commenced by Edward P. Singletary against the Prudential Insurance Company in the court of common pleas, Tulsa, Okla., to recover upon an insurance policy.

¶2 Plaintiff in error was defendant below, defendant in error was plaintiff below. Parties will be referred to as they appear in the trial court. Plaintiff alleged in his petition that during the month of May, 1923, the defendant issued to him an insurance policy in the sum of $ 5,000, which policy, among others, provided, in substance, "if plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled either physically or mentally from any cause whatsoever and unable to engage in any occupation or perform any work for compensation, that up to the full amount of the policy it would pay to the plaintiff in such event in monthly installments the sum of $ 48 per month, waiving in said event the payment of any additional premiums by the plaintiff."

¶3 Plaintiff further alleged that during the month of August, 1924, he became totally and permanently disabled, and that thereafter, on or about the 15th day of January, 1925, he notified the defendant of his condition and of the fact that he was totally and permanently disabled, and furnished the defendant due proof of his total and permanent disability. That, on the 22nd day of July, 1925, defendant commenced the payment of monthly payments provided in said policy and continued said monthly payments to the 22nd day of July, 1927. And that thereafter defendant refused to pay the monthly installments. Plaintiff further alleged that he had performed all conditions of said policy of insurance on his part to be performed, and that by reason of the allegations heretofore made, defendant is indebted to plaintiff, under said insurance contract, in the sum of $ 1,412.47. Defendant answered by way of general denial. Cause came on for trial before jury.

¶4 The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment was entered thereon in favor of the plaintiff by the court. A motion for new trial was filed, overruled, and the defendant brought the cause here for review. Defendant below, plaintiff in error herein, presents in its petition in error 34 assignments of error.

¶5 At page 2 of plaintiff in error's brief, it states:

"More specifically the issue involved is whether or not the plaintiff below was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the policy."

¶6 The question of whether or not the plaintiff was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the policy was a question of fact which was submitted to the jury and found against the defendant's contention. The first contention of plaintiff in error is: The record in this case does not support the judgment.

¶7 With this contention we cannot agree, this being a question of fact. The disability of plaintiff was submitted to the jury on conflicting testimony, and the jury found against the contention of the defendant and in favor of plaintiff, and there being a conflict in the testimony, this court will not weigh the evidence to determine the weight and value thereof. Where there is competent evidence supporting the finding and verdict of the jury, the same will not be disturbed by this court on review.

¶8 An examination of the record discloses competent evidence sufficient to support the verdict of the jury.

¶9 Defendant's next contention is: Plaintiff cannot recover disability benefits for the period of alleged disability prior to the time proofs were furnished.

¶10 Defendant cites, in support of this contention, Mid-Continent Life Insurance Co. v. Walker, 128 Okla. 75, 260 P. 1109.

¶11 The contract in the case at bar and in the Walker Case, supra, provides in part, after providing for notice, as follows:

"If the insured shall furnish the company with due proof that he has since such payment and before attaining the age of 60 years become wholly disabled. * * * Six months after receipt of such proof, the company will begin to pay to the insured a monthly income of 1% of the face amount of this policy."

¶12 The contract sued on in this case provides in part as follows:

"If the insured shall furnish due proof to the company, that while this policy was in full force and effect, he (or she) at any time after the payment of the first premium on this policy, and before attaining 60 years of age, from any cause whatsoever

...