Robson v. United Order of Foresters
| Decision Date | 15 July 1904 |
| Citation | 100 N.W. 381,93 Minn. 24 |
| Parties | ROBSON et al. v. UNITED ORDER OF FORESTERS. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, St Louis County; Homer B. Dibell, Judge.
Action by Isabella T. W. Robson and Sarah C. Campbell against the United Order of Foresters. Judgment for plaintiffs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.
1. Certain benefit certificate or policy of insurance construed. Held, that the contract of insurance involved must be deduced from the application, the policy, the by-laws of the order, and the answers of the insured to all questions contained in the medical examination, involving her physical condition.
2. Prior decisions affirmed, in which this court held:
(a) Where the policy is silent upon the subject, the insurer is liable in the event of suicide by the insured.
(b) Where a policy of insurance provides against such liability in general terms, the insurer is not liable in the event of intentional self-destruction while sane, but is liable if the insured was insane.
(c) Where the policy provides against liability in the case of suicide by either a sane or insane person, such a provision is binding upon the parties to the contract.
3. A contract of insurance prepared by an insurance company will be construed liberally as against the insured, and strictly as against such company. Baldwin, Baldwin & Dancer, for appellant.
Green & Wood and A. L. Agatin, for respondents.
Action upon a life insurance policy in a fraternal society. From a judgment in favor of plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
On July 3, 1900, appellant issued its policy of insurance for $1,000 to Agnes Campbell, payable upon her death to respondents. On July 8, 1902, the insured, while insane, killed herself other than in an accidental manner. The liability of appellant depends largely upon the force and effect to be given a certain clause signed by the assured, following the questions and answers in the medical examination papers, which reads: ‘I hereby consent that any benefit certificate or contract of or for insurance on my life in or by said Order, shall be absolutely null and void, provided my death is occasioned by suicide in any manner whatsoever either while sane or insane.’ The by-laws of the company provided that, in case of death by suicide, the policy shall be void. The policy and application of insurance, so far as material, are as follows: Policy: ‘Then in consideration of the statements and representations contained in the application for membership, and the answers and statements contained in the medical examination papers and the provisions of the constitution and laws prescribed from time to time by the Supreme Court of the Order of Foresters, all of which statements, representations and provisions have been assented to by applicants and are by the parties hereto referred to and made a part of this contract. * * *’ Application: ‘I declare that I am in good sound mental and physical health, and agree that this declaration, together with the answers in my medical examination paper and the laws, rules, and usages of said Order, shall be a part of my contract with said Order.’ It is claimed on behalf of respondent that the clause first above quoted, which was part of the printed form used by the medical examiner, formed no part of the contract of insurance which deceased applied for, or appellant was authorized to or did write. This was the view taken by the trial court.
Three propositions are settled in this state, as applied to life insurance in cases of suicide:
First. Where the policy is silent, the insurer is liable in the event of suicide. Mills v. Rebstock, 29 Minn. 380, 13 N. W. 162. Second. Where a policy provides against liability in case of suicide, the insurer is not liable in the event of intentional self-destruction while sane, but is liable if the insured was insance. Scheffer v. Insurance Co., 25 Minn. 534. Third. Where the policy provides against liability in case of suicide by either a sane or insane person, such a provision is upheld. Cotter v. Royal Neighbors, 76 Minn. 518,...
To continue reading
Request your trial