Richardson v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 18 S.W. 165
• Parties: Richardson v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Kentucky.
• Decision Date: 21 January 1892
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

18 S.W. 165

Richardson v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Kentucky.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

January 21, 1892

Appeal from Louisville law and equity court.

"Not to be officially reported."

Action by Bettie M. Richardson against the Mutual Life Insurance Company of Kentucky on a policy of insurance. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Pryor J.

The appellee issued an insurance policy on the life of E. T Richardson for the benefit of the appellant, who was his wife. The premium to be paid each year, on or before the 22d of February, was $413. One of the premiums (the first) was paid, and a short time after the second premium became due Richardson died. He had been notified that the second premium would fall due, and that he was entitled to a credit on it by reason of a dividend of $42.10. He died on the 29th of February, several days after the second premium should have been paid. He attempted to borrow the money to meet the payment, but failed. His policy was canceled on the books of the company by reason of the non-payment, and the beneficiary of the policy having tendered the premium to the company after her husband's death, and the company declining to pay the policy, this action was brought to recover the amount of the insurance. The ground of recovery is that it was the custom of the company to waive the prompt payment of premiums, and to accept them within 30 days after they became due-a fact known to the insured. Further, that the company had elected not to cancel the policy, and was applying to the premium due the $42 of profits that had been set apart for that purpose. That the company had indulged its patrons by accepting the payment of the premiums long after they had become due, affords no argument in favor of the recovery in a case like this. Doubtless, if the insured had been a well man or in good health at any time within a reasonable period after the premium matured, the company would have received the money and restored the policy; but the mere indulgence to those insured ought not to affect the written contract, or require the company to accept the premium after its maturity when the insured is in bad health, and perhaps in a dying condition. The insured was in bed, sick, when the application for indulgence was made by his agent, Anderson, and died in a few days after. The fact of his illness was unknown at that time to both Anderson and the company, but it is...