Selman v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 29 June 1917 |
| Docket Number | 8126,8127. |
| Citation | 93 S.E. 60,20 Ga.App. 440 |
| Parties | SELMAN v. MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. v. SELMAN. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a 10-payment endowment policy of life insurance is issued, and it is provided therein that it is to be as of a certain date in the future, and an agreement is made for term insurance to run from the date of the entry thereof on the policy to the time when the regular 10-payment policy begins, and a note is given for the amount of the premium due at the time named in the policy for the 10-year insurance to begin, in order to make the policy effective the note must be paid when due, or the time of payment extended by proper authority. (a) If the time of payment is extended, the note must be paid within the extended period. (b) Propositions made by the insurance company to extend the time of payment of the note, or of the premium, must be accepted by the insured, before they will be binding on the company.
There was no error harmful to the defendant in excluding from the evidence the letter of the state manager of the insurance company to the insured, dated December 16, 1914; nor was there error in admitting the evidence of John F. Roche.
Error from Superior Court, Chattooga County; Moses Wright, Judge.
Action by O. A. Selman, administrator, against the Manhattan Life Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error, while defendant takes a cross-bill of exceptions. Affirmed on main bill of exceptions, and cross-bill of exceptions dismissed.
Jno. D. & E. S. Taylor, of Summerville, and H. L. Lanham, of Rome for plaintiff in error.
Robt. C. & Philip H. Alston, of Atlanta, and Maddox & Doyal, of Rome, for defendant in error.
On the 21st day of April, 1914, C. S. Smith made application for insurance on his life for $5,000 to the Manhattan Life Insurance Company of New York. On the 4th day of May following the application was amended, so as to reduce the amount of insurance applied for to $2,000. In the application there was a clause as follows:
"That there shall be no contract of insurance until the policy shall have been issued by the company and manually received and accepted and the first premium paid, all during the good health of the person whose life is to be insured."
A policy of insurance was issued, the concluding clause of which was as follows:
"In witness whereof the Manhattan Life Insurance Company has caused this policy to be executed as of the 15th day of November, 1914."
On this policy was the following indorsement:
Upon the delivery of the policy to the insured, he executed and delivered to the agent of the insurance company two promissory notes--one for $19.54, in payment of premium to cover "term insurance" provided for on the back of the policy, as above set out, and the other what is known as a "pink note," which read as follows:
On the back of the note appears the following:
Neither of these notes was paid by the insured, although it appears that the first-mentioned note, covering the period of term insurance under the policy, was paid to the company by the local or state agent. The insured, after failing to pay the second or "pink" note, was killed on June 18, 1915, and this action was brought by Selman, his administrator.
The evidence shows that the complete contract between the parties in this case embraced two forms and two periods of insurance upon the life of the deceased--one in the nature of term insurance, which covered the period from May 5, 1914, to November 15, 1914, the premium upon which was represented by the first note, for $19.54 (and whether or not this particular note was ever paid by the insured is not now material), which branch of the contract was fully performed by the insurance company, and its obligations upon this branch of the contract automatically terminated upon November 15, 1914; while the second and main feature of the contract, which by the specific terms thereof and by the terms of the "pink note" (to be construed together) did not operate or become effective until the payment, at or before the maturity, of said note, which was given for the first full year advance premium due on November 15, 1914, at which time, if the said note was paid, the policy became a valid contract between the parties for the 10-payment, 10-year endowment policy of insurance upon the life of the insured, and which is the policy sued upon. The insured having failed to pay the "pink note," or otherwise arrange the amount of the advance premium for the first full year of the insurance by the date stipulated, the proposed contract for the endowment insurance was never in fact completed, and the policy was ipso facto void.
The contention of the plaintiff, that the company waived the failure to pay promptly the "pink note," that this note was not given in payment of the first premium, and that the policy was in force at the time of the death of the insured, is without merit. Treating this note as given for the first premium, the regular 10-year policy, without payment of the note by November 15th, the date when due, or unless there was an extension of the time of payment thereof was not binding on the company. The policy provides for the payment of premiums in advance, and the note expressly states in the face thereof that, if it is not paid at maturity, the policy shall be void. See Stephenson v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 139 Ga. 82, 76 S.E. 592; National Life Ass'n v. Brown, 103 Ga. 382, 29 S.E. 927; Sullivan v. Conn. Indemnity Association, 101 Ga. 809, 29 S.E. 41. Conceding that the "pink note" was not given for the first premium, and that as to this note the insured was...
To continue reading
Request your trial