Taylor v. New York Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 25 January 1910 |
| Citation | 90 N.E. 964,197 N.Y. 324 |
| Parties | TAYLOR v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
Action by Emma A. Taylor, as executrix of Royal A. Johnson, deceased, against the New York Life Insurance Company. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (31 App. Div. 922,115 N. Y. Supp. 1146), affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.
James H. McIntosh, for appellant.
Charles E. Spencer, for respondent.
The defendant issued to the plaintiff's testator in his lifetime, and on the 20th day of December, 1895, a policy of life insurance for $5,000. The annual premium thereon was $304. The policy contained provisions as follows:
‘This policy cannot be forfeited after it shall have been in force three full years as hereinafter provided.
The table therein referred to is a part of the policy, and it is headed
It provides that the policy will be continued for its full amount of $5,000 until October 20, 1906, if the premiums are paid thereon to December 20, 1898, and until June 20, 1911, if the premiums are paid thereon to December 20, 1899. It also provides that the policy will be indorsed as in the policy provided for $1,000 of paid-up insurance if the premiums are paid to December 20, 1898, and for $1,333 of paid-up insurance if the premiums are paid to December 20, 1899.
The testator paid the premiums on said policy in cash for the years 1895, 1896, and 1897. On December 20, 1898, instead of paying the premium in cash, he gave to the defendant a note of which the following is a copy:
‘Premium Lien Note.
‘$304.00.
December 20, 1898.
‘Twelve months after date I premise to pay to the order of the New York Life Insurance Company, at the office of the said company in the city of New York the sum of three hundred four and 00/100 dollars with interest at the rate of five per cent. per annum (for value received); being for premium due on December 20, 1898, on policy No. 709,974 issued by said company on the life of Royal A. Johnson.
‘It is understood and agreed.
‘1. That this note may be renewed, if the interest thereon and subsequent premiums on said policy are duly paid.
‘2. That unless said interest and premiums are duly paid, said policy and its accumulations shall immediately become forfeited and void except as to the right to a surrender value or paid-up policy which may be provided in said policy or by statute.
‘3. That in the settlement of any claim or any benefit under said policy, before this obligation shall have been fully paid, the amount thereof shall be deducted from the amount otherwise payable by said company.
‘Signature of the person for whose benefit the insurance is effected:
‘Frances L. Johnson.
‘Signature of the person whose life is insured:
Royal A. Johnson.'
He paid the interest on said note in advance for one year, but never made any other payment on account of the policy or the note, and he did not surrender his policy, or make a demand upon the defendant for continued or paid-up insurance. The testator died October 21, 1906. The beneficiary named in the policy died before the testator, and the policy by its terms became payable to the executors, administrators, and assigns of the insured. The plaintiff as executrix brought this action for the face amount of the policy, and she has recovered judgment therefor, less the amount of said premium note and the interest thereon to the time of the testator's death.
When the note of December 20, 1898, was given the defendant issued to the testator a receipt in the usual form for the premium due that day. The note was accepted as a payment. As we have seen, the insured wholly defaulted in his obligations to the defendant from and after December 20, 1899. The rights of the insured, and those claiming through the policy after December 20, 1899, must be determined by ascertaining the intention of the parties to the contract. The contract is expressed in the policy, and it should be read in connection with the application therefor and the insurance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schoonover v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
... ... issued by defendant on the life of Joseph A. Schoonover. The ... case was tried before Gislason, J. and a ... Pacific Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Davin (C.C.A.) 5 F.2d ... 481; Massachusetts Mut. L. Ins. Co. v ... Bank v. Mutual B.L ... Ins. Co. (C.C.) 81 F. 935; New York L. Ins. Co. v ... Slocum (C.C.A.) 177 F. 842; Slocum v. New York L ... L. Ins. Co. v ... Oliver, 111 Miss. 133, 71 So. 302; Taylor v. New ... York L. Ins. Co. 197 N.Y. 324, 90 N.E. 964; Perry v ... ...
-
Schoonover v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America., 29012.
...588, 106 S. W. 230, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 828; Fidelity Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Oliver, 111 Miss. 133, 71 So. 302; Taylor v. New York Life Ins. Co., 197 N. Y. 324, 90 N. E. 964; Perry v. Prudential Ins. Co., 144 App. Div. 780, 129 N. Y. S. 751; Tate v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 131 N. C. ......
-
McCormack v. Sec. Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...be no unpaid loan thereon.’ There was an unpaid loan on this policy, and hence the table became inapplicable. Taylor v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 197 N. Y. 324, 330,90 N. E. 964. The plaintiff asks us to deduct the loan from the amount stated in the table, and give her a paid-up policy for the r......
-
Rustin v. Aetna Life Ins. Company
... ... dependent upon a computation to be made when the amount of ... the indebtedness is determined. Taylor v. New York Life ... Ins. Co., 197 N.Y. 324, 90 N.E. 964. This case ... considered a similar provision to that in the policy in suit ... here. If ... ...