State ex rel. Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 33949.

• Decision Date: 30 July 1935
• Docket Number: No. 33949.,33949.
• Citation: 85 S.W.2d 469
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator, v. PERRY T. ALLEN, ROBERT J. SMITH and WALTER E. BAILEY, Judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals.

85 S.W.2d 469 STATE OF MISSOURI at the Relation of METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator,
v.
PERRY T. ALLEN, ROBERT J. SMITH and WALTER E. BAILEY, Judges of the Springfield Court of Appeals. No. 33949. Supreme Court of Missouri. Division One, July 30, 1935.

Certiorari.

WRIT QUASHED.

Oliver & Oliver, Fordyce, White, Mayne & Williams, Fred M. Switzer, Jr., and Walter R. Mayne for relator; Leroy A. Lincoln of counsel.

(1) The terms of the policy providing for total and permanent disability benefits are plain and unambiguous. Under the provisions of the policy the insured clearly is not entitled to recover. Adams v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 74 S.W. (2d) 899. (2) The insured's own evidence in this case, as set out in the opinion of the Springfield Court of Appeals, shows clearly and unquestionably that, after the termination of the insurance and up to the date of the trial, he was actually engaged in work for compensation or profit, and that he was not prevented by his deafness from performing any work for compensation or profit. Parten v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 117 S.E. 772, 30 Ga. App. 235; Life & Casualty Co. v. Jones, 73 So. 566, 112 Miss. 506; Buckner v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 90 S.E. 897, 172 N.C. 762; Lee v. New York Life Ins. Co., 125 S.E. 186, 188 N.C. 538; Whitton v. American Natl. Ins. Co., 87 S.E. 827, 17 Ga. App. 525; Thigpen v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 168 S.E. 845; Pannone v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 157 Atl. 876; Katz v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 44 S.W. (2d) 250; Nickolopulous v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 166 Atl. 178; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Foster, 67 Fed. (2d) 264; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Wann, 28 S.W. (2d) 196; Duhaime v. Prudential Ins. Co., 167 Atl. 269; American Natl. Ins. Co. v. Briggs, 70 S.W. (2d) 491; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Barela, 44 S.W. (2d) 494; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Wolfe, 52 Fed. (2d) 537; Herwig v. Business Men's Accident Assn., 234 S.W. 853; Hickman v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 164 S.E. 878; Corsant v. Equitable Life Assur. Society, 211 N.W. 222, 51 A.L.R. 1035; Cato v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 138 S.E. 787; Maresh v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 299 Pac. 934, 133 Kan. 191; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Dause, 76 S.W. (2d) 233. (3) The decision of the Springfield Court of Appeals in this cause is in conflict with the decisions of the Supreme Court of Missouri, in that it construes, or misconstrues, the plain and unambiguous language of the policy. State ex rel. Casualty Co. v. Cox, 322 Mo. 38; State ex rel. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Assn. v. Trimble, 68 S.W. (2d) 685; State ex rel. Life Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 306 Mo. 295; State ex rel. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 297 Mo. 659; State ex rel. American Fire Ins. Co. v. Ellison, 269 Mo. 410; Wendorff v. Mo. State Life Ins. Co., 318 Mo. 363, 1 S.W. (2d) 99; Prange v. International Life Ins. Co., 329 Mo. 651, 46 S.W. (2d) 523. (4) The judgment of a Court of Appeals will be quashed by the Supreme Court on certiorari where the decision of the Court of Appeals construes the plain and unambiguous language of a policy of insurance in such a way as to distort its meaning and write a new contract. State ex rel. Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Assn. v. Trimble, 68 S.W. (2d) 685; State ex rel. Casualty Co. v. Cox, 322 Mo. 38; State ex rel. Life Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 306 Mo. 295; State ex rel. Automobile Ins. Co. v. Trimble, 297 Mo. 659.

Finch & Finch and Rush H. Limbaugh for respondents.

(1) Points not considered nor discussed in opinion of the court are not considered on certiorari, and therefore the pleadings and instructions are not to be considered in this proceeding. State ex rel. Major v. Judges of St. Louis Court of Appeals, 310 Mo. 386, 276 S.W. 1026; State ex rel. Burton v. Allen, 312 Mo. 111, 278 S.W. 772. (a) The provisions of the policy providing for total and permanent disability benefits are ambiguous, and the best evidence of that fact is shown by decisions from almost every state in the Union and by the Federal Courts, finding it necessary to define the language of the total and permanent disability clauses and reaching varying results as to the meaning of same. Katz v. Union Central Life Ins. Co., 44 S.W. (2d) 250; Cole v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 170 Atl. 74; Bullock v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 158 S.E. 185; Colovos v. Life Ins. Co., 28 Pac. (2d) 607; Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Person, 67 S.W. (2d) 1097; Hays v. Life Ins. Co., 171 S.E. 824; Janney v. Life Ins. Co., 315 Pa. 200, 173 Atl. 819; Equitable Life Assur. Society v. Wiggins, 155 So. 327; Wood v. Life Ins. Co., 271 Ill. App. 103; Rezendes v. Life Ins. Co., 189 N.E. 826; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. McKee, 176 S.E. 118; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Turner, 239 Ky. 291, 39 S.W. (2d) 216; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Blue, 133 So. 707; Pannone v. John Hancock Life Ins. Co., 157 Atl. 876; Life & Casualty Co. v. Jones, 112 Miss. 506, 73 So. 566; Met. Life Ins. Co. v. Foster, 67 Fed. (2d) 264; Clarkson v. N.Y. Life Ins. Co., 4 Fed. Supp. 791; United States v. Perry, 55 Fed. (2d) 819; Law v. United States, 290 Fed. 972; Nicolay v. United States, 51 Fed. (2d) 170. (2) The question of whether the evidence sustained a finding that respondent was totally and permanently disabled is not for consideration on certiorari. State ex rel. Brenner v. Trimble, 326 Mo. 702, 32 S.W. (2d) 760; State ex rel. Fichtner v. Haid, 324 Mo. 130, 22 S.W. (2d) 1045; State ex rel. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cox, 313 Mo. 384, 282 S.W. 46; State ex rel. Shaw Transfer Co. v. Trimble, 250 S.W. 396; State ex rel. Raleigh Inv. Co. v. Allen, 294 Mo. 214, 242 S.W. 77; State ex rel. Security Benefit Assn. v. Cox, 9 S.W. (2d) 953; State ex rel. Cox v. Trimble, 312 Mo. 222, 279 S.W. 60; State ex rel. Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Allen, 303 Mo. 608, 262 S.W. 43; State ex rel. Brown v. Broaddus, 216 Mo. 336, 115 S.W. 1018. (a) Only when the Court of Appeals exceeds its jurisdiction by failing to follow a decision by the Supreme Court on the same or similar facts does the Supreme Court have the right to quash the opinion on certiorari, and the proceeding is limited to the sole question of whether there is a conflict, and the Supreme Court never has the right to correct errors of the Court of Appeals on certiorari except where there is such a conflict. State ex rel. Gillman v. Robertson, 264 Mo. 661, 175 S.W. 610; State ex rel. Mechanics American Natl. Bank v...