Thomas v. New York Life Ins. Co., 6849.
| Decision Date | 07 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 6849.,6849. |
| Parties | THOMAS v. NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Millsaps Fitzhugh, of Memphis, Tenn. (Fitzhugh, Murrah & Fitzhugh, of Memphis, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.
R. E. King, of Memphis, Tenn. (King & King, of Memphis, Tenn., and Louis H. Cooke, of New York City, on the brief), for appellee.
Before MOORMAN, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.
Action by the beneficiary under a policy of life insurance issued by appellee to Finis Thomas, appellant's brother. Appellee claimed that the policy had lapsed due to failure of the insured to pay the premium due October 20, 1932. At the close of all the evidence the District Court directed a verdict for appellee.
In August, 1932, while the policy was in effect, the insured was removed to a tuberculosis sanatorium in Booneville, Arkansas, for treatment, where he died on January 15, 1933. Appellee adduced evidence to prove that it had mailed notice of the premium due October 20, 1932, to the insured a month before the due date. The insured's mail was sent to Turrell, Arkansas, and was forwarded to the sanatorium. Appellee had not been formally notified of a change of address, although there is evidence tending to indicate that the local agent was aware of the insured's removal to the sanatorium. Appellant introduced testimony in an effort to prove that the notice claimed to have been mailed was not received, but this testimony was vague and self-contradictory, and too unsubstantial to make an issue of fact for the jury as to the mailing of the first notice. The other two notices usually sent out under the practice and custom of the appellee, the reminder notice during the thirty-day grace period, and the lapse notice, were concededly not sent, and no notice was mailed of the amount of dividend due on October 20, 1932, under the policy. In his application the insured elected that all such dividends should be left to accumulate at interest, subject to the insured's order. The premium due was not paid.
The principal legal question is whether appellee was obliged to notify the insured of the due date of the premium payments. Appellant claims that the insured relied, and had a right to rely, on appellee's uniform custom of sending these various notices, and was misled by his failure to receive them, relying upon Insurance Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U.S. 572, 24 L.Ed. 841. This case, while it contains language supporting appe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
French v. Franklin Life Ins. Co.
... ... 570, 44 S.W.2d 206; Spears v. Independent Order ... of Foresters, 107 S.W.2d 126; Thomas v. N. Y. Life ... Ins. Co., 81 F.2d 614; Thompson v. Knickerbocker ... Life Ins. Co., 14 Otto ... Judge ... Cooley then cited and quoted from New York Life Ins. Co. v ... Eggleston: ... "Justice ... Bradley, said: ... ...
-
Pierce v. Massachusetts Acc. Co.
...Co. v. Doster, 106 U.S. 30, 1 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 65;Kaeppel v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 3 Cir., 78 F.2d 899;Thomas v. New York Life Ins. Co., 6 Cir., 81 F.2d 614. ...
-
John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Hefner.
...54 S.Ct. 348, 78 L.Ed. 711, 92 A.L.R. 693; Northwestern Life Insurance Co. v. Canon, Tex.Civ.App., 110 S.W.2d 588; Thomas v. N. Y. Life Insurance Co., 6 Cir., 81 F.2d 614; State Life Insurance Co. v. McNeese, 106 Ind.App. 378, 19 N.E.2d 854; Dougherty v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 226 Mo.Ap......
-
Pierce v. Massachusetts Acc. Co.
... ... "Prompt payment and regular interest constitute the life ... and soul of the life insurance business," and the same ... 252, 258. Kukuruza v. John Hancock ... Mutual Life Ins. Co. 276 Mass. 146 ... Sherman v ... Metropolitan Life Ins ... Compare ... New York Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U.S. 24; ... Burnet v. Wells, ... Mutual ... Life Ins. Co. 78 F.2d 899; Thomas ... ...