Union Cent. Relief Ass'n v. Johnson
Decision Date | 16 November 1916 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 400 |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Parties | UNION CENT. RELIEF ASS'N v. JOHNSON. |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 18, 1917
Appeal from City Court of Birmingham; H.A. Sharpe, Judge.
Action by Ben J. Johnson against the Union Central Relief Association. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Transferred from the Court of Appeals under section 6, Act April 18, 1911, p. 449. Affirmed.
Allen Fisk & Townsend, of Birmingham, for appellant.
Isadore Shapiro, of Birmingham, for appellee.
Plaintiff (appellee) sued upon a contract of insurance which provided for the payment of a certain indemnity in the event of disability from illness and accident, and for the payment of a principal sum in the event of death. The trial was had by the court without a jury on an agreed statement of facts.
Counsel frankly state that the real question presented for decision is the proper construction of section 9 of the policy. It is as follows:
"If a member owes more than two weekly payments, such member shall thereby forfeit his or her right to receive benefits for sickness or disability occurring or continuing between the date of becoming so in arrears and the expiration of a term of five weeks from the date when all back dues are paid up."
In the context in which this section appears are sections 8 and 10 reading as follows:
It is admitted that the plaintiff failed to pay the weekly installments due, respectively, April 5, April 12, and April 19, 1915; that on April 23, 1915, the plaintiff made the payments becoming due on April 5th and April 12th preceding and on May 1, 1915, made the payments due on April 19th and April 26th preceding, and on May 7, 1915, made the payment due on May 3d preceding, and on May 14, 1915, made the payment due on May 10th preceding, and on May 17, 1915, made the payment due on that date. The plaintiff was disabled on account of sickness from May 10 to May 24, 1915; and for this disability brought this suit "to obtain the disability benefits" provided in the contract. What, then, was the effect of the foregoing failures to pay the installment premiums when they fell due, and of their subsequent payment and acceptance, as we have indicated?
It is the policy of this state to construe every insurance contract, if of doubtful import, in favor of the insured. The contract must, of course, be reasonably construed, in view of the object of the certificate, which is to give insurance and not unreasonably, so as to cut out insurance. James v. Casualty Co., 113 Mo.App. 622, 88 S.W. 125; Foglesong v. Modern Brotherhood of America, 121 Mo.App. 548, 97 S.W. 240; Batten v. Modern Woodmen, 131 Mo.App. 381, 111 S.W. 513; National, etc., Insurance Co. v. Lokey, 166 Ala. 174, 52 So. 45.
However, if there is no ambiguity, there is no field for construction. This statement of the rule finds expression in Cornish v. Accident Ins. Co., 23 Q.B.D. 453, where the Lord Justice said:
Another statement is found in Wheeler v. Fidelity, etc., Co., 129 Ga. 237, 58 S.E. 709, Mr. Justice Cobb writing:
"While we recognize the rule that a policy of insurance must be construed most strongly against the insurer, still the words of the policy must be given the meaning which they ordinarily bear; and where it is manifest that it was the intention of the insurer that liability should attach only in given circumstances, the law will uphold the contract according to its true intent and import."
Thus in construing a policy of accident or sick benefit insurance the whole policy, or the context of the questioned clause, must be considered, in order, if possible, to give effect to the language used, to give it that reasonable interpretation to which it is entitled, and to avoid giving it a meaning not fairly within the terms of the instrument. Where the language is unambiguous, and but one reasonable construction of the contract is possible, the court must expound it as it is made by the parties. Standard L., etc., Ins. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pennsylvania Fire Ins. Co. v. Malone
... ... Georgia Cas ... Co., 209 Ala. 356, 96 So. 319; Union Cent. v ... Johnson, 198 Ala. 488, 73 So. 816; Cherokee ... ...
-
Cherokee Life Ins. Co. v. Brannum
...the language is unambiguous and there is but one reasonable construction of the contract, the court will expound it as made. Union, etc., v. Johnson. supra; Empire Co. v. supra; Union Mut. Aid Asso. v. Carroway, 78 So. 792, 793. A contract of insurance is not complete until the minds of the......
-
Woodmen of the World v. Alford
... ... Moreover, 'the liability of pecuniary gain ... or relief to the judge must occur upon the event of the suit, ... unreasonably to deprive one of the same ( Union Cent ... Rel. Ass'n v. Johnson, 198 Ala. 488, 73 So ... ...
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Reed
... ... the said sum of $1,000 at the rate of 8 per cent. per annum, ... from the 11th day of May, 1920, when the ... Alford, 206 Ala. 18, 89 ... So. 528, 533; Union Central v. Johnson, 198 Ala ... 488, 73 So. 816; ... ...