Starling v. Supreme Council Royal Templars of Temperance

• Decision Date: 26 February 1896
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: STARLING v. SUPREME COUNCIL ROYAL TEMPLARS OF TEMPERANCE.

66 N.W. 340

108 Mich. 440

STARLING v. SUPREME COUNCIL ROYAL TEMPLARS OF TEMPERANCE.

Supreme Court of Michigan

February 26, 1896

Error to circuit court, Wayne county; George S. Hosmer, Judge.

Action by John G. Starling, administrator of Adolphus F. Starling deceased, against the Supreme Council Royal Templars of Temperance to recover under a certificate of insurance. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant brings error. Affirmed.

J. H. Tatem, for appellant.

Powell & Johnson, for appellee.

MOORE J.

The defendant is a fraternal and mutual benefit association composed of social and beneficiary members, with a membership of 13,000. Its beneficiary fund is derived from monthly assessments paid by its members. The certificate of insurance issued to the plaintiff provides, among other things, that the beneficiary, at the death of the assured, shall be entitled to the sum of $1 from each and every active member in good standing, not to exceed 2,000 members, or if the insured shall become totally disabled for life, so as to prevent his following his own or any other avocation, he shall, upon satisfactory proof of such total disability, be entitled to one-half of the above-mentioned amount, the remaining one-half to be paid at the time of his decease provided he shall comply with all the laws, rules, and regulations of the order. On the back of the certificate was indorsed the following: "Total disability shall consist of the following conditions: First. An injury which shall produce complete, total, and permanent disability from following any avocation. Second. Paralysis so extensive as to produce absolute disability to follow any avocation, and which is conclusively permanent. Third. Rheumatic or gouty arphritus followed by permanent anchylosis so extensive as to produce total disability. Fourth. Entire and hopeless loss of useful vision. Fifth. Hopeless and irremediable insanity." In July, 1890, the plaintiff was stricken with paralysis, which, he claims, totally disabled him for work, and entitled him to the sum of $1,000, according to the terms of his certificate, and, inasmuch as his claim was not paid, he brought this suit in 1893.

It is claimed, by way of defense, that in 1890, and before this suit was brought, the causes of total disability were reduced to three (1) Entire and incurable loss of vision; (2) entire loss of both arms, or both legs; (3) hopeless and incurable insanity,-and that, inasmuch as the plaintiff had agreed to observe the rules and regulations of the order, this change of causes of total disability would prevent his recovery for the total disability growing out of the paralysis. It has been held that, where a mutual benefit society issued to a member a certificate of insurance, the subsequent adoption of a by-law by the society could not modify or change the contract of insurance without the express consent of the member. Grand Lodge v. Sater, 44 Mo.App. 445; Insurance Co. v. Connor, 17 Pa. St. 136; Becker v. Society, 144 Pa. St. 232, 22 A. 699; Morrison v. Insurance Co., 59 Wis. 162, 18 N.W. 13. To the same effect is Becker v. Insurance Co., 48 Mich. 610, 12 N.W. 874.

It is also claimed that plaintiff is...