U.S. Life Ins. Co. v. Spinks
Decision Date | 19 October 1906 |
Parties | UNITED STATES LIFE INS. CO. IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK v. SPINKS. |
Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Campbell County.
"To be officially reported."
Action by Harry Spinks against the United States Life Insurance Company in the City of New York. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Augustus E. Wilson and W. H. Mackoy, for appellant.
L. J Crawford and Hazelrigg, Chenault & Hazelrigg, for appellee.
O'REAR J.
February 21, 1894, appellant issued to Charles Spinks a policy of insurance upon his life, payable to his son, Harry Spinks appellee. The policy was an agreement to pay the beneficiary the sum of $25,000 if the assured died within 10 years from December 12, 1893. The consideration was the payment of $1,128.25 annually by the assured on or before December 15th of each year, as premium, the first payment having been contemporaneous with the issue of the policy. Among the conditions contained in the policy was this clause: (2) After being in force three full years, an extended insurance shall be allowed, in accordance with the requirements of chapter 690, p. 1930, of the Laws of 1892, of New York." The insured paid appellant four annual premiums of $1,128.25 each, aggregating $4,513, which continued the policy in force regardless of chapter 690, p. 1969, § 88, Laws of New York up until December 12, 1897. The insured did not pay the premium due on December 12, 1897.
Section 88, c. 690, p. 1969, Laws of New York 1892, is as follows: As the provisions of this act were not specifically waived in the application or otherwise, or notice of such waiver indorsed in red ink on the policy, the last section of the act above quoted is not applied, and the act is to be treated as if that section had been omitted.
On January 27, 1898, the assured, Charles Spinks, and the beneficiary, Harry Spinks, appellee herein, requested the appellant in writing to apply the entire reserve on the policy, including dividend additions, if any, therein calculated as provided in the policy, to be taken as a single premium to continue the insurance of $25,000 named in the policy in force at its full amount for such time as said single premium would purchase that amount as nonparticipating insurance at the company's rates therefor at the date of the policy, taken at the age of the assured at date of default, subject to the conditions and agreements of the contract contained and referred to in the policy. The written application was transmitted with the policy to appellant, who on February 14, 1898, issued and delivered to Charles Spinks its certificate of extended insurance, which was in these words: The assured, Charles Spinks, died September 13, 1898. No other action was taken before his death either by him or the insurer relative to any other extension of the policy.
Thereafter this suit was brought by appellee as the named beneficiary to recover from appellant the full amount of the insurance. In addition to the foregoing facts, it was alleged in the petition that there was a considerable sum in the hands of appellant (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Company") known as surplus, belonging to, and contributed by, the policy holders, of whom Charles Spinks was one of a class, and which was subject to dividends on behalf of such policy holders; that of such surplus there was enough due to be applied to the policy in suit on February 14, 1898, and, on the date of the default in the payment of premium by the assured, which, if applied as a single premium at the company's published rates at the date of the policy, would have purchased for the assured extended insurance for the full amount of the policy for a period beyond September 13, 1898; that the company fraudulently, or by mistake, failed to include such dividend in the reserve of the policy when it extended the insurance, although assured had applied for it to do so, and never knew but what it had done so. It was also charged that appellant was wholly a mutual company. The company denied that there was any dividend addition which could have been applied to the extension of the policy; denied that it had ever declared any dividend to this policy; and denied that there was any fund out of which it could have legally declared such dividend. It also pleaded that the policy was a deferred dividend term policy of life insurance, containing among other things these express conditions: Appellant pleaded that clause 7, just quoted, excluded the Spinks policy from participation in any division of profits or surplus, unless the assured survived the period for which he was insured, and unless the policy was then in full force; that, as he died, and was also in default of premiums, within the 10 years,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
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, ... the minimum the statute prescribes. This leads us necessarily ... [165 S.W.2d 867] ... examination of the nonforfeiture statute, its purposes and ... ...
-
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 ... longer followed ... This ... brings us then to the further point of whether, disregarding ... the rule announced in the Finnigan case, ... ...
-
Golightly v. New York Life Ins. Co
... ... Insurance Company v. Watkins, 189 Ky. 20, 224 S.W. 462; ... and United States Life Insurance Company v. Spinks, ... 126 Ky. 405, 96 S.W. 889, 895, 103 S.W. 335, 13 L.R.A., ... (N.S.), 1053. These decisions construed a Kentucky statute, ... and the Arkansas ... upheld the validity of the same provision of the contract ... under the laws of that state which is now brought into ... question before us in the present case. It is true that the ... opinion does not refer to or discuss Section 7953 of the Code ... of Arkansas, but we must necessarily ... ...
-
Magers v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... sense. [ Ruckmaboye v. Mottichund, 8 Moore (P. C.) p ... "It ... will also aid and should greatly influence us to a correct ... interpretation of the statute and the sense in which it uses ... the words 'net value,' to ascertain the mischievous ... practice ... ...