Skrivanek v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen
| Decision Date | 16 October 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30,934 |
| Citation | 269 N.W. 111,198 Minn. 141 |
| Parties | FRANK F. SKRIVANEK v. BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE FIREMEN AND ENGINEMEN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Blue Earth county to recover disability benefits alleged to be due plaintiff as a member of defendant association. The case was tried before Harry A Johnson, Judge, and a jury. Plaintiff had a verdict. Defendant appealed from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment or a new trial. Reversed and judgment ordered for defendant.
Insurance -- fraternal benefit insurance -- disability benefits -- conditions precedent to resort to courts.
Provisions of the constitution of a voluntary, nonprofit organization requiring as a condition precedent to a resort to the courts in any matter in which a member thereof feels aggrieved by the action of the organization or its officers that such member first exhaust all remedies open to him within the organization, are valid if the remedies so provided are reasonable. Failure of the plaintiff, a member of defendant organization, a voluntary, nonprofit labor association and fraternal society, so to do requires that a verdict obtained by plaintiff against defendant in this action be set aside and judgment entered for defendant.
It does not invalidate such provisions that only the aggrieved member himself or some other member acting on his behalf is permitted to appear before the tribunals of the organization in any dispute.
Pfau & Pfau, C. J. Laurisch, and Harold C. Heiss, for appellant.
Dailey Mason & Mason, for respondent.
Appeal from an order denying defendant's alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.
The defendant organization is a voluntary, nonprofit, unincorporated labor association and fraternal society with several separate and distinct insurance departments among which is a disability benefit department. The plaintiff is a member in good standing of one of the lodges that make up the general organization. Defendant maintains a disability fund toward which members are required to pay dues for the purpose of providing means whereby defendant may make monthly disability payments to those of its members in good standing who should become totally and permanently disabled from causes other than tuberculosis or old age.
As a result of an application therefor, plaintiff was allowed disability payments from June 1, 1932, until July 1, 1933, at which time such payments were discontinued for the reason that defendant's general secretary, after investigation, believed, or so claimed, that plaintiff was not permanently and totally disabled. A short time thereafter plaintiff made another application for disability benefit allowance. It was disallowed by the general secretary. Plaintiff, by letters, made several other demands for payment but with a like result. This action then was brought to compel defendant to make such payments. The result was a verdict for plaintiff.
The general secretary is given authority by the constitution under which defendant is organized to allow or to deny, in the first instance, all claims for disability payments. Members are given the right to appeal from any decision made by him. Further it is provided that no member "shall resort to the civil courts to correct or redress any alleged grievance or wrong" until he shall first have exhausted all remedy by appeal within the organization. It is admitted that plaintiff did not so do. For that reason it is claimed that this action was prematurely brought. No question is here raised as to vested property rights being destroyed through the enactment, by the defendant, of by-laws or amendments to its constitution subsequent to the time plaintiff became a member.
Was appeal to the tribunals within defendant's organization a condition precedent to a resort to the courts? It is clear that it is so provided. Such provisions, when reasonable, are valid and will be enforced in this state. Lindahl v. Supreme Court I.O.F. 100 Minn. 87, 110 N.W. 358, 360, 8 L.R.A.(N.S.) 916, 117 A.S.R. 666. It is the rule in many other jurisdictions. 9 Minn. L. Rev. 578; 1 Couch, Cyc. of Insurance Law, § 266; McGuinness v Court Elm City, Foresters of America, 78 Conn. 43, 60 A. 1023, 3 Ann. Cas. 209; see ...
To continue reading
Request your trial