Ragsdale v. Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen
Decision Date | 03 December 1934 |
Parties | EDWARD RAGSDALE, RESPONDENT, v. BROTHERHOOD OF RAILROAD TRAINMEN, APPELLANT |
Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Randolph County.--Hon. A. W Walker, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Thos J. Tydings and W. M. Stringer for respondent.
Hunter & Chamier for appellant.
The suit herein was instituted May 7, 1933, on a Benefit Certificate or policy of insurance dated April 1, 1900, issued to plaintiff, a Member of Magic City Lodge No. 57 of Moberly, Missouri, of which city and State he was, at all times, a resident and citizen. The second amended petition, on which the case was tried, charged that defendant is and was at all times "a voluntary unincorporated association" . . . "doing business as an insurance company in the State of Missouri," and issued the policy whereby it promised to pay plaintiff the sum of eighteen hundred seventy-five dollars, in the event of plaintiff becoming totally and permanently disabled;" that on or about July , 1931, and while said policy was in full force, plaintiff became totally and permanently disabled, made proof thereof, and fully complied with all the terms and conditions of said policy, and on or about September 1, 1931, demanded said $ 1875, but defendant denied any and all liability and refused to pay anything.
The said second amended petition further alleged that at, prior to, and ever since the issuance of said policy to plaintiff, the defendant, through its Grand Secretary and Treasurer, "stated and represented that every member of defendant association was insured against total and permanent disability and death," that such statement and representation was circulated by defendant, and plaintiff accepted his policy, relying upon said statement and representation, and by reason thereof defendant is estopped from denying liability or "from claiming that plaintiff's total and permanent disability had to be occasioned by any certain cause, in order to render defendant liable upon said certificate or policy of insurance. (Defendant's contention was, and is, that under defendant's Constitution and By-laws the plaintiff's "total and permanent disability" had to be caused either by the loss of a hand or foot, or the loss of the sight of both eyes; while plaintiff's claim is that the "total and permanent disability" is not to be so limited but is as broad as the words indicate.)
Other allegations were made setting up vexatious refusal to pay and asking for penalty and attorney fees; but as the court denied recovery upon these issues no attention need be given to them.
That plaintiff made application to become a member of defendant and was accepted as such, and thereafter on April 1, 1900, was issued a beneficiary certificate Class C by the Grand Lodge, by which he became entitled to all the rights and benefits of membership, "and to participate in the beneficiary department Class C, of said brotherhood."
That in the certificate it was provided that--
1. "Application, said certificate, the constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations of the association, and all amendments made to said constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations, should constitute the contract between plaintiff and defendant, and should govern the payment of benefits thereunder; that plaintiff by said contract did covenant and agree with defendant that said instruments should constitute the contract between him and the defendant and should determine and control the payment of any benefit; that said contract made up as aforesaid is the only contract ever entered into between plaintiff and defendant; that said instruments expressly provided and provide that under no circumstances should plaintiff be entitled to any benefits, except such, and only such, as might be provided for a Class C member in and by the said contract so made up, subject to the conditions, limitations and provisions set out in said instruments, and subject to compliance therewith by plaintiff;"
That said certificate and said constitution and by-laws, rules and regulations provided that--
2.
That the certificate, constitution, by-laws, rules and regulations required certain proofs to be made, which plaintiff strictly followed, and they were properly executed and forwarded to the general secretary and treasurer and considered by the beneficiary board, which refused said claim and gave due notice of such refusal to plaintiff, and that the action of the beneficiary board would be reported to the Insurance Board and this last named Board would meet on the second Monday in January thereafter for the purpose of considering such disapproved claim; that thereafter said board of insurance at its next meeting considered said claim and refused and disapproved the same, of which due notice was given plaintiff and said local lodge;
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Robertson v. Security Ben. Ass'n
... ... 552, 175 P. 679; ... Mooney v. Brotherhood of Ry. Trainmen, 162 Minn ... 127, 204 N.W. 957; Steen v. M. W. A., ... Knights of the Maccabees of the ... World, 57 S.W.2d 749; Ragsdale v. Brotherhood of ... Railroad Trainmen, 80 S.W. 280; Roleson v. Grand ... ...
-
Soukop v. Employers' Liability Assur. Corp., Limited, of London, England
... ... Indemnity ... Co. v. Daues, 13 S.W.2d 1059; Ragsdale v ... Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 229 Mo.App. 545, 80 ... S.W.2d ... ...
-
Reece v. Security Ben. Ass'n
... ... Early v. Knights of ... Maccabees, 48 S.W.2d 890; Ragsdale v. Brotherhood of ... Ry. Trainmen, 229 Mo.App. 545, 80 S.W.2d 272; ... ...
-
Bean v. Modern Woodmen of America
... ... (Mo. App.), ... 104 S.W.2d 1042, l. c. 1044; Murphy v. Brotherhood, etc ... (Mo. App.), 199 S.W. 730, l. c. 731; Herzberg v ... Modern ... Modern Brotherhood (Mo. App.), 105 S.W. 685, l. c. 687; ... Ragsdale v. Brotherhood (Mo. App.), 80 S.W.2d 272, ... l. c. 279; O'Neal v. Grand ... ...