Sackett v. Metro. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 06 December 1932
• Docket Number: No. 99.,99.
• Parties: SACKETT v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

260 Mich. 466

245 N.W. 499

SACKETT

v.METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 99.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 6, 1932.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Parm C. Gilbert, Judge.

Suit by Alice C. Sackett against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before the Entire Bench.Bulkley, Ledyard, Dickinson & Wright, of Detroit (Robert W. Conder, of Detroit, on the brief), for appellant.

Berger & Berger, of Detroit, for appellee.

CLARK, C. J.

Earl H. Sackett left his home in Ecorse on the morning of October 15, 1921, went to his work in a shop, worked until noon, left the shop, and has never been seen or heard of since. He owned a home, and left a wife and five young children.

Plaintiff, the wife, beneficiary in a policy of life insurance, awaited the coming of the statutory presumption of death after absence of seven years, Comp. Laws 1929, § 13467, and brought suit on the policy and prevailed in a trial without a jury. Defendant has appealed, and contends:

First. That the evidence does not show diligent search and inquiry, which, counsel all agreed, must be made. Bailey v. Bailey, 36 Mich. 181. Each case must be determined on its own facts. What might be diligence in one case might not even approach it in another. Here the plaintiff was the wife of a laborer. She had five young children. She was left with little or no ready money. She made inquiry at his place of work, of certain of his near relatives, and at the County Building. She saw the sheriff. She visited morgues. A notice was published in the Detroit News. On the facts and circumstances of this case a finding of diligent search and inquiry is approved.

Second. That there was not sufficient evidence to sustain the finding that insured died on or about October 15, 1921, and within the life of the policy. Griffin v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 250 Mich. 185, 229 N. W. 509.

It does not appear that insured, at the time of his disappearance, was exposed to any specific peril to bring this case within the so-called peril cases. Griffin v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., supra.

In a note, 34 A. L. R. 1390, many respectable authorities are cited, holding, it is said, ‘that an inference of death before the expiration of the seven-year period was permissible, even in the absence of evidence showing the exposure of the absentee to a specific peril, where, taking into consideration the circumstances, relating to the character, habits, condition, affections, attachments, prosperity, and objects in life of the absentee, which...