Spoeri v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1889
• Citation: 39 F. 752
• Parties: SPOERI v. MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri

39 F. 752

SPOERI v. MASSACHUSETTS MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

United States Circuit Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division.

September 27, 1889

The facts agreed upon in this case are as follows: Defendant issued a policy of life insurance on the life of plaintiff's husband, dated April 1, 1884. The premiums were payable semi-annually, on April and October 1st, in each year. The policy contained a clause of forfeiture if the premiums were not paid on the day they fell due, and in case of forfeiture the company stipulated for a release from all liability except such as was imposed on it by the laws of Massachusetts. By the laws of that state, if the assured ceased paying premiums at any time after the payment of two full annual premiums, the policy became a paid-up policy for its net value at the time payments ceased. The assured died on April 8, 1888. Of the seven semi-annual premiums that fell due after April 1, 1884, and prior to April 1, 1888, four were paid by the assured and accepted by the company from 7 to 30 days after they fell due. Three payments only were made at maturity. The final premium due April 1, 1888, was tendered to the company on April 9, 1888, and was accepted by it in ignorance of the death of the assured on the day previous. On discovering that the assured was dead, the company offered to return that premium, but the plaintiff would not accept it. Plaintiff claims that defendant is liable for the face of the policy, $5,000, and interest.

Defendant insists that the policy was forfeited by the non-payment at maturity of the premium that fell due April 1, 1888, and that it is only liable for the net value of the policy on March 31, 1888, computed according to the Massachusetts statute which amount ($1,789) it now tenders and has heretofore tendered.

Rassieur & Schnurmacher, for plaintiff.

Taylor & Pollard, for defendant.

Before BREWER and THAYER, JJ.

THAYER J.

(after stating the facts as above.) The supreme court of the United States has several times said, in substance, that any course of action on the part of an insurance company which leads a party insured honestly to believe that by conforming thereto a forfeiture will not be incurred followed by due conformity on his part, will estop the company from insisting on a forfeiture. Insurance Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U.S. 577; Thompson v. Insurance Co., 104 U.S. 259; Insurance Co. v. Doster, 106 U.S. 37, 1 S.Ct. 18; Insurance Co. v. Wolff, 95 U.S. 333. And the same doctrine is held by other courts. Hanley v. Association, 69 Mo. 382, and cases cited; Goedecke v. Insurance Co., 30 Mo.App. 608. We think that the conduct of the company in the present case was such as fairly warranted the assured in believing and acting on the belief that

...