Trapp v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 30 April 1934 |
Docket Number | No. 9798.,9798. |
Citation | 70 F.2d 976 |
Parties | TRAPP v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
E. H. McVey, of Kansas City, Mo. (C.A. Randolph and Roeder Wild, both of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellant.
Henry I. Eager, of Kansas City, Mo. (William C. Michaels, of Kansas City, Mo., LeRoy A. Lincoln, of New York City, and Meservey, Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk & Eager, of Kansas City, Mo., on the brief), for appellee.
Before STONE and SANBORN, Circuit Judges, and WYMAN, District Judge.
As of November 15, 1917, the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued to Lawrence R. Trapp, age 33, a 52-year endowment policy for $5,000, in consideration of a quarterly premium of $27.45 payable on the 15th day of November, February, May, and August in each year during the life of the policy. In case of the insured's death prior to November 15, 1969, while the policy was still in force, the insurance was payable to his beneficiary. Default was made in the payment of premium due May 15, 1931. The grace period expired June 15, 1931, and the insured died four days later, on June 19th. His wife, Elizabeth Trapp, the appellant, was the beneficiary named in the policy. On May 15, 1931, the cash value of the policy was $900; there were policy loans amounting, with interest, to $864.99, leaving a net cash value or net reserve of $35.01. This amount was sufficient to carry $5,000 of insurance for 224 days. Mrs. Trapp filed proofs of death, and demanded the face of the policy. The company took the position that, under the terms of the policy most favorable to her, she was entitled to extended insurance amounting to $194.50, with interest. It tendered her that amount, which she refused. She brought suit upon the policy; the company answered and renewed its tender, and she replied. Upon the trial, at the close of the plaintiff's case, the court adopted the construction of the policy contended for by the company and directed a verdict for Mrs. Trapp for $213.60, the amount which the company had tendered. From the judgment entered upon the verdict, this appeal is taken, and the action of the court in directing the verdict is assigned and specified as error.
We shall first ascertain what amount Mrs. Trapp was entitled to receive under the terms of the policy.
The policy was made, and to be performed, in Missouri and was governed by the laws of that state. The provisions of the policy with which we are concerned read as follows:
Mrs. Trapp, upon the death of her husband, became at least the equitable owner of this policy, and, within three months from the date of premium default, she had surrendered the policy and demanded payment of it in full. There can be no doubt that she elected to take the greatest benefits which were available to her under the circumstances, and the company so construed her action and tendered to her the largest amount which it believed she was entitled to, namely, term insurance, reduced in such proportion as the insured's indebtedness bore to the cash value of the policy at the time of default.
At the time the policy was issued, there was in force in Missouri a statute which, with amendments which are not here material, has become section 5741, Revised Statutes of Missouri 1929, Mo. St. Ann. § 5741, p. 4388 (see R. S. Missouri 1909, § 6946, R. S. Missouri 1919, § 6151; Laws of Missouri 1923, p. 233). We shall refer to this statute as section 5741, as counsel have done in their briefs. It provides:
* * *"
At the time this case was tried, on February 8 and 9, 1933, this statute had not been construed by the Supreme Court of Missouri, but it had been construed by the Missouri Courts of Appeals. Wilhelm v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America (Mo. App. 1921) 227 S. W. 897, 898 899; Alexander v. Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. (Mo. App. 1927) 290 S. W. 452, 455; Dougherty v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York (1931) 227 Mo. App. 570, 44 S.W.(2d) 206, 215, 216.
Under the statute as construed by the Courts of Appeals, if there was, at the time of default in the payment of premium, an amount available for the purchase of extended insurance under the rule of computation prescribed by the statute, then that amount could be used for the purchase of temporary insurance not less than the face value of the policy; but, if there was no net amount available for the purchase of extended insurance under the statutory method of computation, the statute had no application. In other words, the beneficiary could not, under such circumstances, adopt the statutory amount of extended insurance and the policy method of computing the amount available for its purchase. Dougherty v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 227 Mo. App. 570, 44 S.W.(2d) 206, 215.
Since in this case, under the statutory method of computation, there would have been no amount available for extended insurance, it would naturally be assumed by the court and by counsel that the statute did not affect the policy; but, after the trial and on April 20, 1933, the Supreme Court of Missouri decided the case of Gooch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 61 S.W.(2d) 704, which, so far as the question of liability under the policy contract is concerned, cannot be distinguished from this case. In that case the court construed section 5741 to mean two things:
(1) That the method provided in the statute for determining the amount available for the purchase of extended insurance was the least favorable method available to the insurer.
(2) That whatever amount was available for the purchase of extended insurance, either under the statutory method of computation or any more favorable method provided in the policy, was to be used as a single premium for the purchase of extended insurance for at least the face of the policy reduced by the amount of policy loans.
The statutes of Missouri, so far as applicable, were a part of the policy to the same extent as though they had been expressly written into it. Whittaker v. Mutual Life Ins. Co., 133 Mo. App. 664, 669, 114 S. W. 53; Cravens v. New York Life Ins. Co., 148 Mo. 583, 604, 50 S. W. 519, 53 L. R. A. 305, 71 Am. St. Rep. 628; Id., 178 U. S. 389, 395-397, 20 S. Ct. 962, 44 L. Ed. 1116; Smith v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 173 Mo. 329, 341, 72 S. W. 935; Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Jones (C. C. A. 8) 35 F.(2d) 122, 126; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Rositzky (C. C. A. 8) 45 F.(2d) 758, 760; Gooch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., supra (Mo. Sup.) 61 S. W.(2d) 704, 706.
The question, then, is whether it was section 5741, as construed in the decisions of the Missouri Courts of Appeals, which were expressly overruled by the Supreme Court of Missouri in the Gooch Case page 706 of 61 S.W. (2d), which was written into this policy, or whether it was the statute as now construed by that court.
The rule is that federal courts will follow the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Broadway Laundry Co. v. New York Life Ins. Co.
... ... Continental Life Ins. Co., 30 F.2d 42; ... Travelers Ins. Co. v. Wolfe, 78 F.2d 78; Shira ... v. New York Life Ins. Co., 90 F.2d 953; Trapp v ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 70 F.2d 976; Meadows v ... Continental Assur. Co., 89 F.2d 256; Jones v ... Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., ... ...
-
Doty v. American Nat. Ins. Co.
... ... S. 1939; State ex rel. Adams v. Allen, 125 S.W.2d ... 854; Magers v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co., 152 ... S.W.2d 148; Lindsey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 16 ... F.Supp. 880; Sec. 40-420, ... 46 S.W.2d 523; Finnegan v. American Natl. Ins. Co., ... 137 S.W.2d 698; Wells v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., ... 125 S.W.2d 86; Gooch v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., ... 333 Mo. 191, 61 ... Fidelity Natl. Bank & Trust Co. v. Metropolitan Life Ins ... Co., 12 F.Supp. 524; Trapp v. Metropolitan Life Ins ... Co., 70 F.2d 976. (2) Courts are without authority to ... rewrite ... ...
-
Doty v. American Nat. Ins. Co.
... ... Adams et al ... v. Allen et al. (Mo.), 125 S.W.2d 854; Magers v ... Northwestern Mutual Life Ins. Co. (Mo.), 152 S.W.2d 148; ... Lindsey v. Prudential Ins. Co., 16 F.Supp. 880; Sec ... Met. Life Ins. Co ... (Mo. App.), 125 S.W.2d 86; Gooch v. Metropolitan ... Life Ins. Co. (Mo.), 333 Mo. 191, 61 S.W.2d 704; ... Prudential Ins. Co. of America v ... Bk. & Tr. Co. v ... Met. Life Ins. Co. (Mo.), 12 F.Supp. 524; Trapp v ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 70 F.2d 976. (1) (b) ... Legrand v. Central States Life Ins ... ...
-
Rosenthal v. New York Life Ins. Co.
...contract; it is an old contract which has been restored (Business Men's Assurance Co. v. Scott, 8 Cir., 17 F.2d 4; Trapp v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 8 Cir., 70 F. 2d 976); but the agreement whereby a lapsed policy is reinstated and restored is a new agreement (Wastun v. Lincoln National ......