Rogers v. Great N. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 June 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 18.,18. |
| Citation | 284 Mich. 660,279 N.W. 906 |
| Parties | ROGERS v. GREAT NORTHERN LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Suit by Mary C. Rogers against the Great Northern Life Insurance Company to recover benefits under an accident insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Kent County; Willis B. Perkins, judge.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
John J. Temple, of Detroit, for appellant.
Cornelius Hoffius, of Grand Rapids (Russell Van Kovering, of Grand Rapids, of counsel), for appellee.
Plaintiff sued defendant to recover benefits under an accident insurance policy issued by defendant covering her husband, Earl T. Rogers. The policy was issued June 10, 1935, and insured Earl T. Rogers against death by accidental means. Deceased was killed in an automobile accident July 18, 1935, while the policy was in full force and effect. The policy provided that in such event defendant would pay the beneficiary named in the policy $1,000. It has not paid it.
Plaintiff had no knowledge of the existence of the policy at the time of her husband's death. After his death, she made a search of his papers but did not locate the policy. She has never found it. Plaintiff learned of the possibility of the existence of the policy in July, 1936, through John Hekman, president of the Hekman Biscuit Company by whom her husband had been employed. The Hekman Biscuit Company furnished its employee, Rogers, membership in the Automobile Club of Michigan. As a member of the club, deceased was issued the insurance policy involved, which is a part of the benefit derived from membership. Mr. Hekman, in conversation with Mr. Grashorn, Grand Rapids manager of the Automobile Club of Michigan, asked whether Rogers was covered by an accident policy. Grashorn agreed to investigate, and July 10, 1936, wrote Hekman that he had written the club's Detroit office and found Rogers was covered under an accident policy at the time of his death, and asked that he be sent a complete account and newspaper clippings concerning the death. Grashorn said accidental death under the terms of the policy must be reported within 20 days, but the Detroit office of the club would do all it could to get the claim accepted. Hekman wrote Grashorn July 14, 1936, enclosing a newspaper account of the circumstances of death and explained that plaintiff knew nothing of the existence of the policy and did not have it in her possession at any time. July 22, 1936, the assistant claims manager of the Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, D. N. Tanner, Jr., wrote Mr. C. O. Pauley, secretary of defendant, stating it had received word that Rogers was killed in an automobile accident about a year before, that he had a policy with the defendant, that the beneficiary, Mrs. Rogers, his widow, did not until recently learn there was such a policy issued by defendant, and requested instructions relative to whether it would be satisfactory for it to accept affidavits from the beneficiary, the undertaker, etc. July 23, 1936, Mr. Pauley wrote to Mr. Tanner stating defendant would not want to acknowledge any liability or waive any of the provisions of the policy with regard to notice or proofs of loss unless the circumstances were very unusual or until ‘we had an opportunity to investigate the facts.’ He asked that a copy of Hekman's letter and any other correspondence with anyone representing the beneficiary be sent to him and said the case would be looked into and a decision given as promptly as possible. July 29, 1936, Pauley wrote Tanner acknowledging receipt of his letter of July 25, 1936, in which was enclosed Hekman's letter to the Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, together with newspaper clippings. He said he intended to spend a day in Detroit during the month of August and they might discuss the matter personally at that time. He suggested that Tanner write Hekman that defendant, and not the Automobile Club of Michigan, would have to decide the question of liability; also to write him ‘that you expect an officer of the Great Northern Life Insurance Company to be in Detroit some time soon, at which time this matter will be discussed and he will be advised as to the company's attitude.’ His letter ended with this statement ‘Since there has already been a delay of a year in notifying us, further delay will not work any hardship to anyone.’ November 3, 1936, Pauley wrote Hekman that defendant could not recognize any liability under the policy in view of the failure of the beneficiary to comply with the standard provisions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the policy. These provisions provided substantially as follows:
‘4. Written notice of injury on which claim may be based must be given to the company within twenty days after the date of the accident causing such injury. In event of accidental death immediate notice thereof must be given to the company.
‘5. Such notice given by or in behalf of the insured or beneficiary, as the case may be, to the company at Westminster Building, Chicago, Illinois, or to any authorized agent of the company, with particulars sufficient to identify the insured, shall be deemed to be notice to the company. Failure to give notice, within the time provided in this policy shall not invalidate any claim if it shall be shown not to have been reasonably possible to give such notice and that notice was given as soon as was reasonably possible.
‘6. The company, upon receipt of such notice, will furnish to the claimant such forms as are usually furnished by it for filing proofs of loss. If such forms are not so furnished within fifteen days after the receipt of such notice, the claimant shall be deemed to have complied with the requirements of this policy as to proof of loss upon submitting within the time fixed in the policy for filing proofs of loss, written proof covering the occurrence, character and extent of the loss for which claim is made.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Federal Ins. Co.
...858. Where possible, the intent of the parties is to be drawn from the four corners of the instrument. Rogers v. Great Northern Life Ins. Co., 284 Mich. 660, 279 N.W. 906, 908 (1938). If a contract is clear and unambiguous, the court must enforce the contract as written, according to its pl......
-
Prestige Cas. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.
...286, 289 (1982). The intent of the parties is to be gathered from the four corners of the instrument. Rogers v. Great Northern Life Ins. Co., 284 Mich. 660, 279 N.W. 906, 908 (1938). Terms in the policy must be given their plain meaning; a court cannot create an ambiguity where none exists.......
-
Century Indem. Co. v. Aero-Motive Co.
...that INA provided the insurance during the time in question. Aero contends that the case is similar to Rogers v. Great Northern Life Insurance Co., 284 Mich. 660, 279 N.W. 906 (1938), where the court held that a wife's notice to the insurance company a year after her husband's death was not......
-
Wurtz v. Beecher Metropolitan Dist.
...quotation marks omitted). The intent of the parties is determined from the four corners of the contract. Rogers v. Great Northern Life Ins. Co., 284 Mich. 660, 667, 279 N.W. 906 (1938). “The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts is to ascertain the intention of the parties. To th......