Tynes v. Supreme Life Ins. Co. of America, 13453

• Decision Date: 19 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 13453,13453
• Parties: Delores TYNES v. SUPREME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

Page 567

209 S.E.2d 567

158 W.Va. 188

Delores TYNES v. SUPREME LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation.

No. 13453.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Nov. 19, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

Where provisions in an insurance policy are plain and unambiguous and where such provisions are not contrary to a statute, regulation, or public policy, the provisions will be applied and not construed.

James S. Redmond, Bluefield, for appellant.

Sanders & Blue, Fred O. Blue, Bluefield, for appellee.

NEELY, Justice:

This appeal was granted to determine whether the Circuit Court of Mercer County correctly interpreted a policy of life insurance. As this Court finds that the Circuit Court correctly applied the provisions of the insurance contract and that the policy provisions are not contrary to West Virginia law, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Mercer County is affirmed.

In 1961 the defendant, Supreme Life Insurance Company, issued a life insurance policy to William Thomas Morgan, then forty-two years old, in the amount of $5,000.00. From the date of issuance through December 1971 the insured made timely monthly premium payments; however, the premiums due January 1, 1972 and February 1, 1972 were not paid either by the insured or by anyone on his behalf. The insured died February 13, 1972 leaving the plaintiff, Delores Tynes, as beneficiary under the policy. While the insured owned the policy he borrowed $741.20 against the cash surrender value, which with interest at 5%, made the total indebtedness under the policy at the time of the insured's death $801.47. At the time of the insured's death the cash surrender value of the policy was $138.88 which represented the projected cash value at that time of $940.35 less the indebtedness of $801.47.

Under the nonforfeiture provisions the company tendered $738.45 to the plaintiff in full settlement, which the plaintiff refused on the grounds that she believed that there was $4,198.53 due her, a sum representing the $5,000.00 face value of the policy less the loan of $801.47.

The defendant insurance company successfully maintained in the Circuit Court that the following nonforfeiture provisions when read in Pari materia establish the death benefit at $738.45. The relevant provisions of the policy are as follows:

'Option C. EXTENDED TERM INSURANCE--This policy may be continued as non-participating term insurance for the sum insured from the date of default for the period stipulated in the Table of Guaranteed Loan and Non-Forfeiture Values provided premiums have been paid for at least one (1) full year from the date this policy was issued. The extended term insurance shall be for such duration as the cash value will purchase when applied as a net single premium at the attained age nearest birthday of the Insured.

'20. AUTOMATIC EXTENDED INSURANCE. If one of the foregoing options is not elected within the grace period for payment of the premium in default, this policy will automatically be continued under the extended term insurance option from the date of default, subject, however, to the right of election of one of the other non-forfeiture options within sixty (60) days after the date of default.

'21. INDEBTEDNESS. Any indebtedness to the Company on or secured by this policy, at due date of the premium in default, will be deducted from the Cash Value, and the amount of Extended Insurance or Paid-Up Life Insurance will be reduced by the proportion that...