Satterfield v. Fidelity Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama
• Citation: 55 So. 200,171 Ala. 429
• Parties: SATTERFIELD v. FIDELITY MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Decision Date: 01 February 1911

55 So. 200

171 Ala. 429

SATTERFIELD v. FIDELITY MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 1, 1911

Rehearing Denied May 5, 1911.

Appeal from City Court of Bessemer; William Jackson, Judge.

Action by Ida Satterfield against the Fidelity Mutual Life Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Estes Jones & Welch, for appellant.

Cabaniss & Bowie, for appellee.

SIMPSON J.

This action is by the appellant against the appellee on an insurance policy on the life of plaintiff's husband in her favor. The policy is in evidence, dated January 9, 1905 and it is admitted that Henry Satterfield (the insured) died on January 3, 1906. The defense set up is that the initial premium on said policy has never been paid, and that on that account the policy is null and void.

The evidence offered by the defendant is not controverted by any evidence offered by the plaintiff, to wit, that at the time of the delivery of the policy no money was paid, but the plaintiff executed and delivered three promissory notes for the initial premium, due, respectively, on the 1st days of February, March, and May, 1905; that repeated demands were made for the payment of said notes, but no payment has been made on the same; that the plaintiff was notified that according to the terms of the policy, the receipt which was given for the initial premium, and the terms of said notes said policy was ipso facto null and void, and could be revived only on certain terms named, which has never been done.

The plaintiff claims that the payment of the initial premium was waived by the delivery of the policy; and section 4579, Code of 1907 (section 2602, Code of 1896), is relied on. Said section provides that "no life nor any other insurance company, nor any agent thereof, shall make any contract of insurance, or agreement as to policy contract, other than is plainly expressed in the policy issued thereon." The purpose of this statute is to protect the person insured from being overreached by agreements outside of the policy not fully understood by him, and not for the purpose of enabling him to practice a fraud on the company or to obtain a policy without paying for it. 14 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cas. (note) p 1095. In the face of the policy are these words: "This contract is made in consideration of the written application of the above-named insured, and the payment in advance to said company of thirty-eight 08/100 dollars on the delivery of this policy, and thereafter," etc. Following the signature of the officers are the "General Precedent Conditions.--The application, copy of which is given on the third page, forms the sole basis of this contract, which shall not be operative or binding until the actual payment of the initial premium, and delivery of the policy during the lifetime and good health of the insured." And then follow a number of statements about the surrender value, payment of premiums, etc. Then follows the "Application," which, among other things, states: "The policy issued hereon shall not become binding on the company until the first payment due thereon shall have been actually received by the company or its authorized agent during my lifetime and good health." A receipt was given for the initial premium in the following words: "Received from Henry Satterfield, Bessemer, Ala., R. F. D. 4, L. F. 165690, $38.08, for annual premium payable in advance and due Jan. 9th, '05, under above numbered policy, subject to the conditions endorsed hereon, and which are made a part hereof." And the indorsement thereon states that, in order to the validity of said receipt, "the amount specified herein must be actually paid, otherwise this receipt and said policy shall be null and void. It is understood and agreed that a...