Saunders v. Union Central Life Ins. Company
| Decision Date | 05 June 1923 |
| Citation | 253 S.W. 177,212 Mo.App. 186 |
| Parties | MARY C. SAUNDERS, Respondent, v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis.--Hon. J Hugo Grimm, Judge.
AFFIRMED.
Judgment affirmed.
Percy Werner for appellant.
(1) Appellant and its insured had a legal right to meet in Missouri and enter into a policy insurance contract, and agree therein that it should be held and construed to have been made in the State of Ohio. McElroy v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 84 Neb. 866; 19 Am. and Eng. Ann. Cas, l c. 35, and note; Guessemer v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 10 Wash. 202; Green v. Life Ins. Co., 159 Mo.App 274. (2) The loan agreement in this case was not a contract independent of the policy, but distinctly a contract subsidiary thereto, and hence an Ohio contract, to be held and construed the same as the policy, that is, governed by the laws of Ohio. Liebing v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., U. S. S.Ct. (42 S.Ct. 467), 226 S.W. 987; Burridge v. New York Life Ins. Co., 211 Mo. 158; McCall v. International Life Ins. Co., 196 Mo.App. 318; Dannhauser v. Wallenstein, 169 N.Y. 199; Cole v. Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co., 63 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 442; McDonnell v. Alabama Gold Life Ins. Co., 85 Ala. 401; Lewis v. New York Life Ins. Co., 181 F. 433; Scally v. W. T. G. & Co., 11 Cal.App. 738; Russell v. Harrington, 33 Okla. 225. (3) Under all the evidence, the sale of the policy to appellant under the loan, agreement was valid. (4) The policy contract and subsidiary loan agreement being Ohio contracts, plaintiff was not entitled to appeal to the provisions of the Missouri statutes relating to extended insurance.
Chilton Atkinson and Richard A. Jones for respondent.
--This is an action on a policy of life insurance for the sum of $ 4200, issued by defendant company upon the life of Ernest L. Saunders, deceased, the beneficiary named therein being plaintiff his widow. Following the verdict of a jury there was a judgment for $ 1597.17, which represents the face of the policy, less certain unpaid premiums with interest thereon and also less the amount of a loan made by the defendant on said policy during the lifetime of said Saunders. From this judgment defendant appeals.
The defendant was organized under the laws of Ohio, was licensed to do business here, and maintained a branch office in the city of St. Louis. The insured Saunders was also a resident of St. Louis, and made application to the St. Louis office of the defendant for the policy, which application was in writing and was delivered to the defendant at St. Louis. Thereafter the policy was executed at Cincinnati, Ohio, delivered to the insured in the city of St. Louis, and the premiums were paid here.
After alleging the execution and delivery of the policy on December 31, 1897, in consideration of the payment of the annual premium of $ 132.30, and making the further allegation that the insured had paid all annual premiums up to and including the premium due for the year 1907, it is alleged in the petition that the said insured Ernest L. Saunders died on the 12th day of August, 1918; that the premiums were not paid on the policy after the premium due in advance for the year 1907, payable on the 31st day of December, 1906, but that at the time of default in the payment of said premium, three-fourths of the net value of said insurance policy computed upon the American experience table of mortality with four and one-half per cent interest per annum, as provided by the terms and conditions of the Revised Statutes of Missouri of 1889, sections 5856-5859, was of an amount taken as a net single premium for temporary insurance for the full amount written in said insurance policy sufficient to pay for and maintain same in full force and effect for and in accord with the provisions of said law up to and beyond the 12th day of August, 1918, when said Ernest L. Saunders died, and at the time of his death said policy was in full force and effect and defendant required to make payment thereon, less the amount of the unpaid premiums with interest and the amount of the loan negotiated by said Ernest L. Saunders with the defendant company and on account of which the policy was given as collateral security.
By its answer, defendant admitted the execution and delivery of the policy, and denied all the other allegations of the petition. The answer further set up that the policy was issued subject to the terms and conditions contained therein, one of which was that the defendant company would loan certain amounts at certain times as set forth in a Table of Loan Values in the policy; that the insured had obtained a loan of $ 825 from appellant in accordance with the terms of such policy, and had deposited same as collateral under a joint note of himself and wife; that under the terms of said note and after default thereon, a sale of said policy was had and the defendant became the purchaser thereof at private sale; that the insured had acquiesced therein, and by reason thereof the note had become extinguished and the policy canceled.
The policy in suit contained the following provision: "This policy is issued and accepted subject to the benefits, provisions and conditions contained on the second page hereof, which are made a part of this contract, which contract shall be held and construed to have been made in the city of Cincinnati, Ohio." There was a further provision that the company will loan on the policy as collateral security at the end of the ninth year thereof the sum of $ 823, the premium for the next succeeding year to be deducted from the loan.
All premiums on the policy were paid up to and including the one due on December 31, 1906. On December 3, 1906, the insured made a written application for a loan, which was executed and delivered to defendant at the city of St. Louis, and on December 4, 1906, the insured and the plaintiff his wife, delivered to the defendant their promissory note for the loan applied for, namely, $ 825, at St. Louis; and here received a check for the proceeds of the loan, less the next annual premium on the policy. The application for the loan was sent by the St. Louis branch of the defendant company to its home office at Cincinnati, where the loan was approved and form of note sent to the St. Louis office for signature of the insured and plaintiff. Check for the proceeds of the loan was likewise sent from the Cincinnati office to the St. Louis Office, which delivered same to the insured. The loan agreement executed by the insured and the plaintiff at the time is as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial