Ransford v. National Protective Ins. Ass'n

• Decision Date: 07 May 1929
• Docket Number: No. 20703.,20703.
• Citation: 16 S.W.2d 663
• Parties: RANSFORD v. NATIONAL PROTECTIVE INS. ASS'N.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

16 S.W.2d 663

RANSFORD v. NATIONAL PROTECTIVE INS. ASS'N.

No. 20703.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

May 7, 1929.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Scotland County; Walter A. Higbee, Judge.

"Not to be officially published."

Action by M. F. Ransford against the National Protective Insurance Association. From a judgment for plaintiff in an unsatisfactory amount, he appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Jayne, Jayne & Jayne, of Memphis, for appellant.

Higbee & Mills, of Kirksville, for respondent.

HAID, P. J.

This was an action instituted by the beneficiary in an accident policy to recover the sum of $1,200 upon the death of the insured. No question is made about the issuance of the policy nor concerning the manner of the death of the insured, but the contest is waged upon the construction of the contract of insurance.

The case was tried to the court upon a stipulation of facts, and resulted in a judgment for the plaintiff for $50, which was according to the construction placed upon the policy by the defendant, and the court awarded the costs against the plaintiff.

The material portions of the policy are as follows: "This Policy Provides Indemnity for Loss of Life, Limb, Sight or Time by Accidental Means, as herein Provided. National Protective Insurance Association * * * Does Hereby Insure H. E. Ransford * * * for a term of One Year * * * against Death, Dismemberment, Loss of Sight, or Disability resulting solely from bodily injuries effected, directly and independently of all other causes, through External, Violent, and Accidental Means, subject, however, to all the terms, provisions and limitations herein contained * * * Part I. The Company will pay for loss of life $1,200.00. * * *" Then follows an enumeration of amount that will be paid for permanent injuries, such as the loss of limbs, etc.

Part II of the policy sets forth 11 sections covering the character of accidents which are covered by the policy, none of which cover an injury from a gunshot wound. The policy then, in part III to VII, provides for monthly indemnity for total and partial disability, special indemnities, elective benefits, medical attention, and accumulations.

Part VIII is entitled, "All Other Accidents," and section "A" thereof is as follows: "A. The Company will pay for loss of life of the Insured which results within thirty days from date of accident, solely from injuries caused by any accident if not otherwise covered by this policy, and which shall have caused continuous total disability from date of accident to date of loss, the sum of fifty dollars ($50.00)."

The appellant claims the policy is ambiguous and susceptible of two constructions in that part II is repugnant and inconsistent with the insuring clause of the policy, and, consequently, that part II must be ignored and effect given to the insuring clause.

The courts of our state have many times held that, if a policy is open to different constructions because the provisions are inharmonious, the terms used must be most strongly construed against the insurer and the insured given the benefit of the most favorable construction. O'Malley v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 232 S. W. 199; Taylor v. Loyal Protective Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 194 S. W. 1055; McAlister v. National Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 251 S. W. 98. But it is also true that "contracts of insurance, like other contracts, are to be construed according to the plain and ordinary meaning of the words employed, unless it appears from the four corners of the instrument that both parties intended that they should be understood in a different sense." McAlister v. National Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App.) 251 S. W. 100.

Is the contract in the present case ambiguous? While the policy provides that the company will pay $1,200 for loss of life resulting from external, violent, and accidental means, the condition of such payment is made subject to the terms, provisions, and limitations herein contained. Since, in the construction of any contract, it is necessary to give effect to every part thereof, the words "herein contained" must refer to the whole of the instrument, and, consequently, it is necessary to consider all of the terms, provisions, and limitations in the instrument in order to ascertain the intention of the parties. Reading the provision for payment of $1,200 for the loss of life in conjunction with the limitations of part II of the contract, we ascertain that such payment is to be made when such loss of life results solely from bodily injuries sustained in the manner set out in part II. Death resulting solely from bodily injuries sustained from a gunshot wound not being covered by the provisions of part II, no benefits would be payable under the terms of the policy, unless other provisions therefor appear. Part VIII, therefore, was placed in the policy to provide a payment in the event of loss of life in any accident not covered by the provisions of part II. It seems to us that, applying the rules of construction applicable...