Renfro v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 19 April 1910
• Parties: RENFRO v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

129 S.W. 444

148 Mo. App. 258

RENFRO v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

April 19, 1910.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1910.

1. INSURANCE (§ 585)—INDUSTRIALINSURANCE—CONTRACTS—VALIDITY.

The facility clause of an industrial life policy that on the death of insured prior to a specified date, the amount due may be paid to either the beneficiary named or to the executor or administrator, husband or wife or any blood relative of insured, and that the production of a receipt signed by either of them shall be conclusive evidence of payment is valid, and where insurer has paid the policy to one of the enumerated persons who owned the policy and surrendered it, another of the persons enumerated may not compel payment.

2. APPEAL AND ERROR (§ 994) — REVIEW — CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES.

The credibility of witnesses is for the trial court.

3. EVIDENCE (§ 461) — PAROL EVIDENCE — VARYING WRITTEN CONTRACTS.

A written contract may not be varied by parol evidence of the intent of the parties before executing it.

4. EVIDENCE (§ 450)—PAROL EVIDENCE—AMBIGUITY.

The word "estate" in an industrial life policy naming the "estate" of insured as the beneficiary and providing for the payment on the death of insured before a designated date of the amount due to either the beneficiary or the executor or administrator, husband or wife, or any relative by blood of insured, is ambiguous, and parol evidence that the agent of insurer at the time he procured the application for the policy informed insured that her only child would be paid the policy, is admissible to show the child's rights, and the child, in possession of the policy at the time of insured's death, may compel payment thereon.

5. INSURANCE (§ 591) — INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE—CONTRACTS—CONSTRUCTION.

Industrial life policies will be treated by the courts as highly benevolent, and they will not be construed as intending to provide a fund for the benefit of creditors of insured, unless that is distinctly set out in the policy itself.

6. INSURANCE (§ 602)—FAILURE TO PAY POLICY—PENALTY.

Where insurer in an industrial policy designating the estate of insured as a beneficiary refused to pay on insured's death the amount of the policy to the only child of insured, the

court awarding judgment in favor of the child would not impose the damages prescribed by Rev. St. 1899, § 8012 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 3808), for insurer had the right to take the judgment of the court as to its liability.

7. INFANTS (§ 88)—ACTIONS—GUARDIAN AD LITEM—ATTAINMENT OF MAJORITY PENDING ACTION.

Where the real party in interest has, pending the litigation, attained full age, the next friend may in the discretion of the court be dismissed from the case, and judgment entered directly in favor of such party.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Jas. E. Withrow, Judge.

Action by Samuel S. Renfro by Samuel A. Jenkins as next friend against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Samuel S. Renfro is an infant under the age of 21 years and over the age of 18, and having no legally appointed guardian, a next friend, who is the nominal plaintiff, had been appointed by the court to serve in that capacity, and as such has brought this suit. Using the word plaintiff hereafter, unless otherwise noted, we refer to the minor, who is the real party in interest. The suit was originally brought in a justice's court on a statement there filed, and on appeal to the circuit court the amended petition on which the case was tried was filed. In this amended petition it is set out that the defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of New York, engaged in business in this state, and that on the 14th of October, 1901, at the city of St. Louis, the defendant, by its certain policy, insured the life of one Jessie Taylor, the mother of the plaintiff, and that while plaintiff's name does not appear in the policy as the beneficiary, yet it is averred that it was understood and agreed by and between defendant, plaintiff, and the insured that the plaintiff would be made beneficiary in the policy; that it is provided in the policy as follows: "In case of such prior death of the insured the company may pay the amount due under this policy to either the beneficiary named above or the executor or administrator, husband or wife, or any relative by blood of the insured, and the production of a receipt, signed by either of them, shall be conclusive evidence that all claims under this policy have been satisfied."

The petition then sets out that plaintiff is a relative by blood of the insured, being her only child and heir, and that ever since the issue of the policy he has been the owner thereof and the owner of the receipt book in which the premiums paid on the policy were recorded; that it is now, and was at the time of the issue of the policy, the custom of the defendant to pay industrial insurance policies such as this to the husband or wife, or any relative by blood of the insured; that the insured, Jessie Taylor, died about the 25th of April, 1907, and at the time of her death all the conditions and provisions contained in the policy were duly complied with by her, and within a short time after her death plaintiff applied to defendant for blanks upon which to make proof of the death of the insured but the defendant failed, neglected, and refused to furnish them and denied all liability on the policy, thereby waiving such proofs of death; that prior to the institution of the suit plaintiff demanded of defendant payment of the policy, "but defendant vexatiously refused to pay said policy or any part thereof." Judgment is prayed for $195, less the unpaid premiums of 15 cents per week from the 14th day of May, 1906, to the date of the death of the insured, namely, 25th of April, 1907, with interest thereon from the filing of the suit, to wit, 26th of August, 1907, also 10 per cent. of the face of the policy, less the unpaid premiums aforesaid, and a reasonable attorney's fee for vexatiously refusing to pay the policy. There was no written pleading on the part of the defendant, either before the justice or the circuit court.

The case was tried before the court, a jury having been waived, and the policy introduced which was in the name of Jessie Taylor, the weekly premiums being 15 cents and the amount of insurance payable in the event of death after one year $195; after three years the above amount to be increased as provided in the policy. Opposite the entry, "name of beneficiary and relationship to the insured," is the word "Estate." The policy then provides in the ordinary way that in consideration of the statements in the printed and written application, which are made warranties, and of the payment of the premiums mentioned on or before each Monday, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company agrees to pay as an endowment to the insured named above, on the anniversary of the policy next after she shall have passed the age of 79 years and upon the surrender of the policy and all receipt books, $270; or if the insured die prior to the date of the maturity of the endowment, to pay upon the receipt of proofs of the death of the insured, made in the manner, to the extent and upon the blanks required herein, and upon surrender of the policy and all receipt books, the amount stipulated in said schedule. Then follows this clause, which is called the "facility" clause: "In case of such prior death of the insured the company may pay the amount due under this policy to either the beneficiary named above or to the executor or administrator, husband or wife, or any relative by blood of the insured, and the production of a receipt signed by either of them shall be conclusive evidence that all claims under this policy have been satisfied." Another clause in the policy provides that the agents of the defendant company are not authorized and have no power to make, alter, or discharge contracts, waive forfeitures or receive premiums on policies more than four weeks in arrears, or to receipt for the same in the receipt book. It was admitted at the trial that the premiums had not been paid on the policy from the 14th of May, 1906, to the date of the death of the insured, 25th of April, 1907, but that the reserve on the policy carried it by way of extended insurance beyond the death of the insured, which it is admitted occurred on the 25th of April, and it was also admitted that the amount due on the policy, if there is any...