United States v. Collins
| Decision Date | 28 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 3349.,3349. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. COLLINS. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Okey P. Keadle, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Huntington, W. Va. (David D. Ashworth, U. S. Atty., of Beckley, W. Va., and Lawrence A. Lawlor, Atty., Veterans' Administration, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for the United States.
Lively & Stambaugh, of Charleston, W. Va., for appellee.
Before PARKER and SOPER, Circuit Judges, and CHESNUT, District Judge.
In this case the government appeals from an adverse judgment in a suit by the plaintiff (now the appellee) on a war risk insurance policy. The sole question presented is whether, prior to the institution of the suit, there existed a "disagreement" as to the claim between the Veterans' Bureau and the plaintiff, which is a necessary condition precedent to the maintenance of the suit, under the applicable statute. 38 US CA § 445.
The policy in suit was issued to Clarence A. Collins, an enlisted soldier during the World War, naming his father, George Collins, as beneficiary. The former was discharged from the Army August 30, 1918, and died on the 15th day of December, 1918. His father, George Collins, was appointed administrator, and sues for disability benefits under the policy both in his representative capacity as administrator and also in his individual capacity as beneficiary under the policy. The suit was filed June 30, 1931, and on the same day, as stated in the brief for the appellee, the plaintiff filed a claim for the insurance benefits with the Veterans' Bureau, for the sole purpose, it is said, to protect the plaintiff's rights in case the court should hold the "disagreement" did not exist at that time. By written stipulation of the parties the case was tried by the District Court without a jury. The court found from the evidence that the requisite "disagreement" existed before the institution of the suit and also found the existence of total and permanent disability of the insured, Clarence A. Collins, at the time of his discharge from the service while the policy was still in force and continuing until his death. The government duly specially excepted to both findings and has assigned error therein. But the only assignment of error that is pressed is with regard to the existence of the "disagreement."
In our opinion the District Court was in error in finding the existence of legally sufficient evidence of the disagreement. USCA title 38, § 445, as amended July 3, 1930, authorizes a suit only "in the event of disagreement as to claim" and in the last paragraph defines the term "claim" as "any writing which alleges permanent and total disability at a time when the contract of insurance was in force, or which uses words showing an intention to claim insurance benefits." And the term "disagreement" is defined as "a denial of the claim by the director or some one acting in his name on an appeal to the director." It is clear, therefore, that the burden was on the plaintiff in this suit to show that he or some one for him had made to the Veterans' Bureau a claim in writing for insurance benefits and that the latter had been denied. The sole evidence in the case tending to show any claim in writing for insurance benefits or denial thereof prior to suit consisted of a letter from the plaintiff (undated, but apparently written some time prior to September 22, 1926) to United States Senator Goff and apparently by him forwarded to the Veterans' Bureau and replied to by the assistant director under date of September 22, 1926. In his letter to Senator Goff, the plaintiff stated that he was making application with all necessary proofs to the War Department for adjusted bonus compensation for his deceased son, Clarence A. Collins, and also for bonus and back allotment money; and requested the assistance of Senator Goff in obtaining these payments. The letter included the statement that "my son named me his beneficiary to his war risk insurance and made an allotment to me also." This letter was obviously not itself a claim to the bureau but was a request to Senator Goff for assistance in securing payment of a claim which had been filed with the bureau by the plaintiff. Although the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Meakins
...did not constitute a "claim," within the meaning of section 19 of the World War Veterans' Act, 38 U.S.C.A. § 445. Compare United States v. Collins, 4 Cir., 61 F.2d 1002; United States v. Peters, 8 Cir., 62 F.2d 977; Wilson v. United States, 10 Cir., 70 F.2d 176; Corn v. United States, 10 Ci......
-
Rosario v. United States, 7030.
...States, D.C., 54 F. 2d 397; Maulis v. United States, D.C., 56 F.2d 444; Taylor v. United States, D.C., 57 F.2d 331; United States v. Collins, 4 Cir., 61 F.2d 1002; Fouts v. United States, 5 Cir., 67 F.2d 249; Pelkey v. United States, 63 App.D.C. 211, 71 F.2d 3 House Report #874, 71st Cong.,......
-
United States v. Wallace, 2317.
...construed by the courts. Simmons v. United States, 4 Cir., 110 F.2d 296; United States v. Townsend, 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 1013; United States v. Collins, 4 Cir., 61 F.2d 1002; United States v. Meakins, 9 Cir., 96 F.2d Since disagreement is indispensable to the jurisdiction, and denial of a claim ......
-
McEntire v. United States, 9299.
...v. United States, D.C., 31 F. Supp. 93. 3 Amendment of June 29, 1936, to World War Veterans Act, 38 U.S.C.A. § 445d. 4 United States v. Collins, 4 Cir., 61 F.2d 1002; United States v. Peters, 8 Cir., 62 F.2d 977; United States v. Primilton et al., 5 Cir., 76 F.2d 555; United States v. Lockw......