Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Hopkins
Decision Date | 11 February 1920 |
Docket Number | (No. 1592.) |
Citation | 219 S.W. 254 |
Parties | SOUTHLAND LIFE INS. CO. v. HOPKINS. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Lubbock County; W. R. Spencer, Judge.
Action by Mollie I. Hopkins against the Southland Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
W. H. Bledsoe, of Lubbock, and Seay, Seay, Malone & Lipscomb, of Dallas, for appellant.
Bean & Klett and Percy Spencer, all of Lubbock, for appellee.
The appellee sued appellant to recover $5,000, alleged to be due upon a policy of insurance issued the 28th day of February, 1916, upon the life of her husband, Bion P. Hopkins, who it is alleged died on the 29th day of October, 1918. She sues as the beneficiary under the provisions of the policy, alleging, in substance, that all premiums had been paid up to and including the date of the death of the insured; that if mistaken in her allegations as to the payment of the premium due February 28, 1918, the policy was nevertheless in effect at the time of the death of the insured, in that, on or about the 5th day of February, 1918, appellant agreed with the insured in writing to a modification of the policy, by changing the time for the payment of the premium due February 28, 1918, to October 28, 1918, it being stipulated that as part of the agreement for the extension of the payment of said premium it was made subject to the provisions of the policy, which contained a clause that a grace of 31 days should be granted for the payment of every premium after the first; that the death of the insured occurred during the period of grace so provided in the policy; that if she is mistaken in her allegation that the insured died during the period of grace then there was never a forfeiture of the policy by the appellant for nonpayment of the premium, because the validity of the premium was recognized by appellant and its right to forfeit the same, if it ever existed, was waived, in that, on October 19, 1918, appellant wrote a letter to the insured with reference to the payment of the premium due on October 28, 1918, stating that if it was inconvenient for him to pay the full amount due, viz., $69.13, appellant would accept a partial payment and extend the balance a reasonable time; that the insured was by said letter induced to believe, and did believe, that appellant was willing to negotiate for a settlement of said premium by receiving a part of the amount due, and to grant a reasonable time for the payment of the balance, and that he would have a reasonable time in which to reply to said letter and ascertain the terms upon which a settlement could be made; that at the time the insured received the letter he was suffering from influenza, which later developed into pneumonia and produced his death; that he was induced by said letter to postpone answering for a reasonable time until his recovery, but that in the course of 4 or 5 days he became irrational and unable to attend to business, and continued in such condition until the time of his death; that if it had not been for said letter the insured would and could have paid said premium when due. Wherefore the right of appellant to claim a forfeiture, if any, was waived, and it was estopped to insist that the policy was not in effect at the time of the insured's death. The prayer is for the recovery of the face of the policy, together with the statutory attorney's fees and penalty. The appellant answered, admitting the issuance of the policy, and alleging, in substance: That the policy was not in force at the time of the death of Bion P. Hopkins, on October 29, 1918, same having become null and void on account of the failure of the said Hopkins to comply with its terms and conditions. That the anniversary of said policy was the 28th day of February, and on the 28th day of February, 1918, there was due the annual premium of $66.45 cash; that the provision with reference to the payment of premiums as stated therein is as follows:
That on January 2, 1918, the assured wrote appellant as follows:
"The next payment on my insurance policy will be due in March, and I am asking to carry my note for the amount until fall, while I can pay it at maturity, but it would be quite a favor to have it carried."
That said letter was received by the appellant on January 23, 1918, and on that day it replied:
"We are in receipt of your letter of the 21st and shall be pleased to accommodate you and are inclosing note due October 28th, which we will accept in lieu of the current premium on this policy."
That said Hopkins executed the note inclosed and returned it to the appellant, same being received and accepted by it, under date of February 5, 1918, subject to the terms of the receipt issued therefor. The note is in terms as follows:
That on February 5, 1918, the appellant issued and sent to the said Hopkins a receipt for the annual premium of $66.45. That Bion P. Hopkins did not pay said note, and his policy became null and void on October 28, 1918, and at the time of his death, on October 29, 1918, the policy was void and of no effect. Appellant denied that it had waived the forfeiture of the policy or was estopped to claim a forfeiture, alleging that the true facts in reference to appellee's contention are as follows: That on October 19th, appellant wrote the insured Hopkins as follows:
That prior to the maturity of said note the appellant sent it to the Citizens' National Bank of Lubbock, Tex., and that said bank presented the note to the insured while he was in good health, but that he did not pay the note. That it never had, by letter or otherwise, led the said Bion P. Hopkins to believe that a settlement of the note would not be accepted at maturity, but, on the contrary, expressly advised him that unless it was paid or settlement made prior to its maturity the policy would lapse and become null and void.
The case was tried without the assistance of a jury, resulting in a judgment in favor of appellee for the sum of $5,000, together with the further sum of $600, penalty, and attorney's fees in the sum of $1,500, with interest from January 24, 1919, at the rate of 6 per cent., less the amount of the premium note. $66.45 with 6 per cent. interest thereon from February 28, 1918. After the receipt of the note appellant issued and mailed to the insured the following receipt:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Russell v. New York Life Ins. Co.
... ... 21 A. 680, 23 A. 197; Union Central Life Ins. Co. v ... Pollard, 94 Va. 146, 64 Am. St. 715, 26 S.E. 421, 36 L ... R. A. 271; Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Hopkins (Tex ... Civ.), 219 S.W. 254; Fidelity Mutual Ins. Assn. of ... Philadelphia v. Miller, 92 F. 63, 34 C. C. A. 211; ... ...
-
The Bank Savings Life Insurance Company v. Baker
... ... or repeal of the statute." ... See, ... also, Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Hopkins, 219 S.W ... 254 (Tex. Civ. App.); E. O. Barnett Bros. v. Western ... ...
-
Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Elmore
...fact made to the authorized agent of the company. Amarillo National Life Insurance Co. v. Brown, 166 S. W. 658, 665 (12); Life Insurance Co. v. Hopkins, 219 S. W. 254. The eleventh assignment is overruled, which urges that an exception to the answer should have been sustained to the effect ......
-
Southland Life Ins. Co. v. Hopkins
...by Mollie I. Hopkins against the Southland Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals (219 S. W. 254), and defendant brings error. Reversed and Seay, Seay, Malone & Lipscomb, of Dallas, and W. H. Bledsoe, of Lubbock, for plaintiff in error. Per......