Southern States Life Ins. Co. v. McCauley
| Decision Date | 26 January 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 8817,8817 |
| Parties | SOUTHERN STATES LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, and Charles A. Keeling Sr., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Fred L. McCAULEY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
This is a suit on a promissory note executed by defendant-appellant to appellee Keeling, representing part of the premiums for two life insurance policies issued by Southern States Life Insurance Company on the life of appellant's parents, Thomas Crawford McCauley and Marie Opal McCauley. Appellee Keeling endorsed the note to Southern States Life Insurance Company, but subsequently paid the note and it was assigned bank to him. No question is presented as to his right to sue. See Smith v. Orion Insurance Company, 298 F.2d 528 (10th Cir. 1961); Annot. at 90 A.L.R.2d 1291.
The record discloses, and the court found, that in 1951 the named insureds had purchased insurance from Southern States Life Insurance Company, which policies expired by their terms in 1961. Thereafter, in 1965, appellant discussed the possible purchase of new policies, but was dissatisfied because of the absence of value in the old policies. Notwithstanding that the lapsed policies had no actual value, appellee advised appellant that if his parents would take new policies, a credit of approximately $4,000.00 could be allowed because of the old policies. The premium on the new policies was more than $9,000.00 for the first year, 90% of which represented appellee's commission. On March 22, 1965, two new policies on the lives of his parents were issued and delivered to appellant as owner and beneficiary, and he executed and delivered a note to appellee in the amount of $5,064.95 which, together with a $4,182.15 credit granted by appellee, covered the first year's premium on the new policies. Appellant would not have purchased the new policies had he not received the benefit of the refund which was in fact a special favor or advantage given by appellee in order to sell the insurance.
The note was not paid when due and this suit was instituted to collect. Appellant answered admitting execution of the note, but claimed that it was null and void because executed in reliance on false representations made by appellee that the old policies had value which appellant was entitled to have credited on the premium on the new policies. The basis for appellant's claim may be found in the provisions of § 58--9--3, N.M.S.A.1953, which reads as follows:
'Any person who is not a licensed agent, broker, or solicitor, who shall at any time knowingly receive any rebate of any premium specified in any insurance policy, or any special favor or advantage of any kind or nature whatsoever not plainly designated in the policy, or receive any dividends or profits, except dividends on participating policies, or agree to receive any dividends or profits, or anything of value whatsoever not specified in the policy, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100), or imprisonment in the county jail for thirty (30) days, or both, in the discretion of the court; Provided, that this section shall not apply to the payment of dividends upon contracts made as inducements prior to the enactment hereof.'
Appellant contends that there were two contracts, one involving the life insurance policies which need not be considered here, and the other involving the promissory note which was void because of illegal consideration. The illegality was said to result from Keeling's agreement to give a rebate which would be illegal for appellant to receive. Appellant maintains that if he paid the note with knowledge of the statute against rebates he would violate the statute.
Since the statute prohibits the receipt of rebates it would be violated by appellant's failure to pay the full premium, no less than by his promise to pay only a portion of it. The court would not be discouraging...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garcia v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of N.M.
...Currell Lumber Co., 1970–NMSC–018, ¶ 16, 81 N.M. 161, 464 P.2d 891 ; S. States Life Ins. Co. v. McCauley, 1970–NMSC–010, ¶ 7, 81 N.M. 114, 464 P.2d 404 (“The party at fault under the statute cannot gain an advantage by his own act.”); Elephant Butte Alfalfa Ass'n v. Rouault, 1926–NMSC–009, ......
-
Jackson Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Receconi
...based in part on illegal consideration even though such illegality violated state criminal law); Southern States Life Ins. Co. v. McCauley, 81 N.M. 114, 116, 464 P.2d 404, 406 (1970) We first adopted this rule in Douglass, in which we held that a policy made in violation of various statutes......
-
Golberg v. Sanglier
...not support application of the rule. Contractor Indus. v. Zerr, 241 Pa.Super.Ct. 92, 359 A.2d 803 (1976); Southern States Life Ins. Co. v. McCauley, 81 N.M. 114, 464 P.2d 404 (1970). 4 To say a party is not in pari delicto is only to use "a linguistic method for avoiding unduly harsh applic......
-
Capo v. Century Life Ins. Co.
...not the other, the party at fault under the statute is not entitled to gain an advantage by his own act. Southern States Life Insurance Co. v. McCauley, 81 N.M. 114, 464 P.2d 404 (1970). Where the law creates an illegality that is designed for coercion of one party and the protection of ano......
-
New Mexico
...186. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 57-5A-1 to 57-5A-5. 187. N.M. STAT. ANN. §§ 59A-1-1 to 59A-59-4. 188 . S. States Life Ins. Co. v. McCauley, 464 P.2d 404, 406 (N.M. 1970). New Mexico 34-23 may effect certain efforts to fix or alter prices. No reported decisions interpret this provision. Section 59A-......
-
New Mexico. Practice Text
...See, e.g., id. § 57-19-23. 200. Id . §§ 57-5A-1 to 57-5A-5. 201. Id . §§ 59A-1-1 to 59A-59-4. 202. S. States Life Ins. Co. v. McCauley, 464 P.2d 404, 406 (N.M. 1970). New Mexico 34-25 Section 59A-16-24(B) prohibits charges in excess of “the insurer’s applicable classifications and rates the......