The Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Warner
| Decision Date | 30 September 1875 |
| Citation | 80 Ill. 410,1875 WL 8770 |
| Parties | THE CHICAGO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANYv.ANNA M. WARNER. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of LaSalle county; the HON. EDWIN S. LELAND, Judge, presiding.
Mr. O. B. SANSUM, for the appellant.
Mr. H. N. RYON, and Mr. CHARLES BLANCHARD, for the appellee.
This action was brought by appellee on a policy of insurance issued by appellant, on the life of Wm. H. Warner, husband of appellee.
On a trial of the cause before the court, a jury having been waived, appellee recovered a judgment for the amount of the policy. The appellant claims that at the time Wm. H. Warner died, the policy was forfeited, for the non-payment of an annual premium of $25.56, due on the 28th day of June, 1872, and, for that reason, the judgment rendered was erroneous.
The policy was issued on the 28th day of June, 1870. It provides, that in consideration of $25.56, paid by Anna A. Warner, and of the annual premium of $25.56, to be paid on or before the 28th day of June, in every year during the term of life, do assure the life of Wm. H. Warner, for the sole benefit of Anna M. Warner, in the amount of $1000, for the term of his natural life, commencing June 28, 1870, payable ninety days after death, and due notice, etc.
The policy, among other conditions, contains the following: “If the said premiums shall not be paid on or before the days above mentioned for the payment thereof, except as herein provided, then in every such case this policy shall be null and void, and the said company shall not be liable for the payment of the sum assured or any part thereof.”
It appears, from the proof, that Wm. H. Warner died about 10 o'clock, in the forenoon of the 29th day of June, 1872, the premium due on the 28th day of June not having been paid to the company.
Under the plan of insurance, the policyholder was entitled to a dividend of $6.40, on the 28th day of June, 1872, on the policy. On the 1st day of June, the company sent to the insured a notice, in writing, that on the 28th of June, 1872, the policy would be entitled to the dividend, which may be used on that day as cash, in payment of the premium then falling due, or to the purchase on that day of $15 additional insurance, payable with the policy. If no instructions, in writing, were given to the company, the latter plan will be considered chosen, and the additions will be made payable with the policy.
A notice was also sent to the insured by the company, in which he was informed of the amount of premium for the year, and when the same became due.
After the death of Warner, and on the 2d day of July, the company addressed another communication to the assured, which contained the following: Within a few days after this notice was received, appellee offered the company the balance of the premium due June 28, after deducting the $6.40 dividend, due at that date on the policy, but the company refused to accept.
It is obvious that the provision in the policy, providing for a forfeiture for a non-payment of the annual premium, was incorporated in the contract for the benefit of the insurance company. The policy did not necessarily become void, if the premium was not paid when due. The company had the undoubted right to waive the forfeiture, if it saw proper, and dispense with a prompt payment of the premium at the time it was due.
If this has been done by the insurance company in this case, then, notwithstanding the contract declares the policy void if the premium is not paid when due, the company can not avail of the defense. If the practice of the company, and its course of dealings with the insured, and others known to the insured, has been such as to induce a belief that so much of the contract as provides for a forfeiture in a certain event will not be insisted on, the company will not be allowed to set up such forfeiture, as against one in whom their conduct has induced such belief. May on Insurance, sec. 361.
Were the facts in evidence sufficient to warrant the court in arriving at the conclusion that the forfeiture was waived? In the communication of June 1st, when the insured was informed by the company that he would be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Union Central Life Insurance Company v. Caldwell
...6 N.E. 268. The waiver of notice of sale is not a waiver of the demand of payment. 2 N.Y. 445; 12 Wis. 465. The forfeiture was waived. 80 Ill. 410; 2 Ins. § 1376; 47 Mo. 406; 30 Ia. 133; 30 Oh. St. 441; 1 Joyce, Ins. § 542. For application of doctrine that forfeitures are not favored in ins......
-
Beatty v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
...Sup.Ct. 671; Dennis v. Association, 120 N.Y. 496, 505, 24 N.E. 843; King v. Association, 87 Hun, 591, 597, 34 N.Y.Supp. 563; Insurance Co. v. Warner, 80 Ill. 410; Association v. 137 Ill. 417, 27 N.E. 538; Silverberg v. Insurance Co., 67 Cal. 36, 39, 7 P. 38; Association v. Jones, 84 Ky. 110......
-
Tebo v. Supreme Council of Royal Arcanum
...79 Ky. 403; Wiberg v. Minnesota S. R. Assn., 73 Minn. 297; Mee v. Bankers, 69 Minn. 210; Gandy v. Orient, 52 So. C. 225; Chicago v. Warner, 80 Ill. 410; v. Mutual, 44 Wis. 376; Joliffe v. Madison, 39 Wis. 111; Underwood v. Iowa, 66 Iowa 134; Shea v. Massachusetts, 160 Mass. 289; Home v. Rie......
-
Austin Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams-Childers Co.
...custom of such agent to exercise such power over the contracts of the company. Insurance Company v. Norton, 96 Otto, 234; Chicago Life Ins. Co. v. Warner, 80 Ill. 410; Holmes v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co., 61 Penn. State, 107; Bowman v. Ins. Co., 59 New York, 521; Westchester Fire Ins. Co. ......