Rabb v. Mutual Ben. Health and Acc. Ass'n

Decision Date18 September 1958
Docket NumberNo. 37341,No. 2,37341,2
PartiesF. K. RABB v. MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH AND ACCIDENT ASSOCIATION
CourtGeorgia Court of Appeals

R. H. Jones, Augusta, for plaintiff in error.

Hull, Willingham, Towill & Norman, W. Hale Barrett, Augusta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court

TOWNSEND, Judge.

1. 'After a valid contract of insurance has been effectuated, the right of either party to cancel it at pleasure can accrue only in three ways: 1. By a concurrent agreement with the other party to that effect. 2. By a previous reservation of the right in the policy itself. 3. By statutory provision permitting it.' Prudential Ins. Co. v. Ferguson, 51 Ga.App. 341, 346, 180 S.E. 503, 506. Reservation of such right in the company should be strictly construed, but where the language is plain and unambiguous it must be given its reasonable intendment in accordance with the intention of the parties.

2. (a) 'Where a polity of insurance is for a term only, and at a designated premium per month for such other periods as as may be provided in agreements of renewal, and provides that 'the acceptance of any renewal premium shall be optional with' the insurer, the insured has no contract right to a renewal of the policy beyond the term originally stated, and cannot renew it beyond the expiration of any renewal period which may have been agreed upon, by a payment in advance of the monthly premium, although made in accordance with the provisions of the policy, where the insurer refuses payment, returns the money, and refuses to renew the policy. A failure of the insurer in such a case to accept the payment and to renew the policy does not amount to a repudiation or violation of the contract of insurance.' Hall v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance Co., 48 Ga.App. 359, 172 S.E. 721. See also Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. McConnel, 50 Ga.App. 87, 176 S.E. 911; Washington Nat. Ins. Co. v. Phinizy, 49 Ga.App. 304, 175 S.E. 387.

(b) An exception to this rule of course exists where a loss has occurred as to which a claim is pending or will be pending within the time limited in the policy for filing it, since the insurer cannot take advantage of a cancellation clause or an option-to-terminate clause in a policy so as to rid itself of an accrued liability. This rule of law explains and distinguished National Life Ins. Co. v. Jackson, 18 Ga.App. 494(2), 89 S.E. 633, relied upon by the plaintiff in error, for it was there held that even though an option-to-terminate clause existed in a combined life and health policy, the company was estopped to refuse to accept the monthly premium payment so as to relieve itself of liability for the death of the insured who had contracted a fatal illness during the time payments were made and accepted.

3. The policy in question contained the provision: '(c) This policy is issued on consideration of the statements made by the insured in the application and the payment in advance of $23 as first payment; and the payment in advance of premiums of $13 quarterly of $52 annually thereafter, beginning with December 1, 1932, is required to keep this policy in continuous effect. If any such dues be unpaid at the office of the Association in Omaha, Nebraska, this policy shall terminate on the day such payment is due. The acceptance of any premium on this policy shall be optional with the Association, and should the premium provided for herein be insufficient to meet the requirements of the Association, it may call for the difference as required. The mailing of notices to the insured at least 15 days prior to the date they are due shall constitute notice of dues. (d) The term of this policy begins at 12 o'clock noon, standard time, on date of delivery to and acceptance by the insured against accident and on the 31st day thereafter against disease and ends at 12 o'clock noon on date any renewal is due, unless premium is paid on or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Williams v. Mutual of Omaha
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit
    • January 5, 1962
    ...Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ins. Co. v. Kennedy, 5 Cir., 140 F.2d 24 (applying the law of Florida); Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n., 98 Ga.App. 193, 105 S.E.2d 396 (where the option to accept any premium was reserved in the language of the policy here and there was atta......
  • Miller v. Mutual Ben. Health and Acc. Ass'n of Omaha
    • United States
    • New Mexico Supreme Court
    • June 27, 1966
    ...Ass'n v. Cohen (8th Cir.1952), 194 F.2d 232, cert. denied 343 U.S. 965, 72 S.Ct. 1059, 96 L.Ed. 1362; Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n, 1958, 98 Ga.App. 193, 105 S.E.2d 396; Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Caver, 1934, 169 Miss. 554, 152 So. 897; and Ray v. Mutual Benefit He......
  • Chicago Insurance Company v. Camors
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • March 6, 1969
    ...loss. The authority of an insurance company to cancel a policy of insurance must be strictly construed, Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn., 98 Ga.App. 193(1), 105 S.E.2d 396; see also 45 C.J.S. Insurance § 445; and applicable provisions of the policy, or of a statute which by la......
  • Weber v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Oregon
    • February 28, 1963
    ...an absolute right of renewal. A more recent case on the same subject adopting the rule announced in Lyon is Rabb v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, 98 Ga.App. 193, 105 S. E.2d 396. Among other cases in direct conflict with plaintiff's theory are Mutual Benefit Health & Acciden......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT