Shambegian v. United States

• Decision Date: 13 March 1936
• Docket Number: No. 2814.,2814.
• Citation: 14 F. Supp. 93
• Parties: SHAMBEGIAN v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island

14 F. Supp. 93

SHAMBEGIAN v. UNITED STATES.

No. 2814.

District Court, D. Rhode Island.

March 13, 1936.

James B. Littlefield, of Providence, R. I. (Littlefield, Otis & Knowles, of Providence, R. I., of counsel), for plaintiff.

J. Howard McGrath, U. S. Atty., of Providence, R. I., and William J. Hession and Timothy A. Curtin, both of Boston, Mass., Attys. for Department of Justice, for the United States.

MAHONEY, District Judge.

This is an action in which the plaintiff, by Andras S. Yaghjian, as guardian of his property and estate and as his next friend, seeks to recover judgment for the total permanent disability payments under a war risk insurance policy.

The petition alleges that the plaintiff, Citrak Shambegian, enlisted in the army of the United States on July 18, 1919, and that on July 22, 1919, there was issued to him a contract of war risk insurance in the amount of $10,000, providing for the payment of $10,000 to his beneficiary in case of his death, or $57.50 each month to said plaintiff in case of his permanent total disability.

It further alleges that said plaintiff was honorably discharged on a certificate of disability June 17, 1921; that at the time of his said discharge said insurance was in full force by reason of the payments of the premiums; that said policy, during the service of said plaintiff in the army and prior to July 1, 1921, matured by reason of his permanent and total disability; that his permanent and total disability was founded upon neurasthenia, insanity, dementia præcox, paranoid type, industrial and social incapacity, incompetency and other disabilities; and that there is a disagreement with the Veterans' Bureau in respect to said plaintiff's rights under said contract of insurance, said plaintiff's claim having been denied by the Veterans' Administration on or about June 21, 1935, as is provided in section 19 of the World War Veterans' Act of 1924, as amended July 3, 1930 (38 U.S.C.A. § 445). Action was commenced by the filing of the petition October 17, 1935.

The defendant has moved that the petition be dismissed for the following reasons:

"1. That at the time suit was instituted by petition filed October 17, 1935, no valid disagreement as required by Section 445 title 38, United States Code 38 U.S.C.A. § 445, existed as the claim was pending on appeal to the Administrator of Veterans Affairs and had not been denied by him.

"2. That this suit was not timely instituted within the time limitations as set forth in Section 445 title 38, United States Code 38 U.S.C.A. § 445."

The first reason advanced by the defendant is without effect. Clause 5 of the petition sets forth that "Said plaintiff duly presented to the defendant his claim under said contract of insurance, but said defendant has disagreed with him as to said claim, the plaintiff's claim having been denied by the Veterans' Administration on behalf of the defendant on or about June 21, 1935 (as is provided in section 19 of the World War Veterans Act, as amended July 3, 1930 38 U.S.C.A. § 445)."

It thus appears on the face of the petition that a valid disagreement as required by the statute existed at the time the petition was filed.

The second reason presents a more serious question. Under the provisions of section 19 of the World War Veterans' Act of 1924, as amended July 3, 1930 (38 U.S.C.A. § 445), actions on a policy must be commenced within six years after the right accrued for which this claim is made, or within one year after July 3, 1930, whichever is the later date, with this proviso, namely: "Infants, insane persons, or persons under other legal disability, or persons rated as incompetent or insane by the Bureau...