Strauss v. Mut. Reserve Fund Life Ass'n.1

• Decision Date: 09 June 1900
• Citation: 36 S.E. 352,126 N.C. 971
• Parties: STRAUSS. v. MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N.1
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

126 N.C. 971

36 S.E. 352

STRAUSS.

v.MUTUAL RESERVE FUND LIFE ASS'N.¹

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 9, 1900.

MUTUAL BENEFIT ASSOCIATIONS — INCREASE OF ASSESSMENTS—BREACH OF CONTRACT—DAMAGES.

1. Where assessments in a mutual insurance association are to be on the entire membership, and proportioned among the members according to the age of each, the association, after receiving large sums in assessments from a member, cannot, without his consent, so alter the contract as to place him in a class of members whom it requires to pay on the basis of the age attained by each at the date of the assessment, while other members continue to be assessed as of their age at entry.

2. Where a mutual life association violates its contract with a member, the damages to which he is entitled are the amount of premiums and dues paid by him, with interest from the date of each payment.

Appeal from superior court. Craven county; Hoke, Judge.

Action by Joseph Strauss against the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Shepherd & Busbee, J. W. Hinsdale, and Sewell Tyng, for appellant.

W. W. Clark, for appellee.

DOUGLAS, J. This is an action brought to recover damages for the alleged wrongful cancellation of a policy of insurance. The record comprises over 500 pages, with a large number of insertions, amounting in the aggregate to perhaps 600 pages of printed matter. The case was fully and ably argued at length, and we have been favored with well-prepared and exhaustive briefs; and yet we see but one simple point essential to the determination of the case: Can a mutual association, by whatever name it may be called, or whatever may be its purposes, enter into a contract with one of its members, and, after receiving large sums upon said contract, alter its essential terms, without the consent of the member, so as practically to destroy its value? We think not. The plaintiff became a member of the plaintiff association in 1883, and received a policy in the form of a certificate of membership, wherein it was expressly agreed that assessments should "be made upon the entire membership in force at the date of the last death for such a sum as the executive committee may deem sufficient to cover said claims; the same to be apportioned among the members according to the age of each member as per table indorsed" on said certificate. It appears from the findings of fact that the plaintiff paid all demands made upon him up to the year 1898, and call No. 96. This last call he refused to pay on the ground that it was exorbitant and contrary to the express terms of his policy. It seems that by successive resolutions, none of which were amendments to its constitution, the association has placed in a separate class all members who entered prior to 1890, and requires them to pay on the basis of the age attained by each at the date of each assessment, while other members continue to be assessed only as of their age of entry. That the result of such discrimination is injurious to the plaintiff clearly appears from the 16th, 18th, 21st, and 22d findings of fact as follows: "(16) * * * That since the last resolution of 1898 the plaintiff and all who joined said company prior to 1890, and who held policies similar to plaintiff's, were assessed at their full attained age, and rates applicable to such age, whereas persons who became members since 1890, and who held policies under what is styled the 'Ten-Year Class' and the 'Five-Year Class, ' are only assessed at their age of entry; and plaintiff is thereby assessed at a higher amount than if the entire membership were assessed at rates of their attained ages." "(18) That call number 96, made on plaintiff in 1898, and pursuant to the resolutions of said year, is larger in amount than it would have been had all the members of the association been assessed at their full attained ages." "(21) That the present valueof plaintiff's policy, assuming that the rates were properly established and the members lawfully classified, was, at...