Webb v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 December 1908
• Citation: 134 Mo. App. 576,115 S.W. 481
• Parties: WEBB v. MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

115 S.W. 481

134 Mo. App. 576

WEBB v. MISSOURI STATE LIFE INS. CO.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

December 29, 1908.

Rehearing Denied January 26, 1909.

1. EXEMPTIONS (§ 50)—LIFE INSURANCE—VALIDITY OF PROVISIONS OF POLICY—DEDUCTION OF INDEBTEDNESS.

Rev. St. 1899, § 7895 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 3749), providing that any life policy for the benefit of insured's wife shall inure to her separate benefit, independent of her husband's creditors, etc., does not prevent the insertion of conditions in the policy which, in whole or in part, defeat her right to the proceeds, so that a provision for the deduction of any indebtedness due the company under the provisions of the policy, or otherwise, is valid.

2. INSURANCE (§ 523)—CONTRACT—CONSTRUCTION — AMOUNT PAYABLE — DEDUCTION OF INDEBTEDNESS— "OR OTHERWISE."

A provision of a life policy that any indebtedness due the company under any provision of the policy, or otherwise, including any balance of the premiums remaining unpaid, will be deducted upon settlement of the policy, could not be construed to cover merely indebtedness arising under the policy, on the theory that the phrase "or otherwise" should be limited to debts similar to the premiums, etc., mentioned in the policy, but covered all debts due the company, and would include advances made to insured on a running account.

3. CONTRACTS (§ 152)—CONSTRUCTION — LANGUAGE —NATURAL MEANING.

Where the words of a contract are not ambiguous, they will be given their natural meaning.

4. CONTRACTS (§ 153)—CONSTRUCTION — CONSTRUCTION OF WHOLE CONTRACT.

Every part of a contract must be effectuated, if possible.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Matt G. Reynolds, Judge.

Action by Sarah A. Webb against the Missouri State Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Jones, Jones, Hocker & Davis, for appellant. R. A. Crabb and Percy Werner, for respondent.

GOODE, J.

This is an action on a policy of insurance issued by the Safety Fund Life Association of St. Louis to Stephen O. Webb. Defendant has assumed the outstanding contracts of said Life Association, and indeed is simply said association doing business under a new name. The policy was issued February 1, 1900, and insured the life of said Webb in the sum of $2,000 for the benefit of plaintiff, who was his wife. The insured died January 6, 1907, having paid the premiums and complied with the other conditions of the policy. Defendant filed an offer to let plaintiff take judgment for a certain sum, contending it was entitled to deduct from the face of the policy the amount of some debts owed by the insured to the association. This contention was based on a paragraph of the policy, which provided as follows: "Any indebtedness to the association under any provision hereof or otherwise, including any balance of the premiums for the insurance year remaining unpaid, will be deducted in any settlement of this policy or of any benefit thereunder." The offer of judgment was not accepted by plaintiff, and afterwards defendant filed an answer admitting the allegations of the petition, except the one that it was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $2,000, and averring that, though plaintiff was designated as the beneficiary in the policy, said instrument provided for a change of the beneficiary by the insured, and provided, further, that any indebtedness to the association might be deducted under a settlement of the policy or a benefit accruing thereunder. The answer then averred the insured was indebted to defendant, at the time of his death, for money advanced and paid to him, at his special instance and request, between May 20, 1901, and January 15, 1907, as per the items of a running account filed with and made a part of the answer. It was further averred defendant had tendered to plaintiff the amount of the policy, less the amount of said indebtedness, or $1,566.58, which sum it admitted owing to her and offered to pay. The account appended to the answer as part of it was entitled "S. O. Webb, in Account with the Missouri State Life Insurance Company," and consisted of various advancements of cash to Webb by defendant, and of credits for payments made by Webb from May 29, 1901, to January, 1907. There were 38 debit charges and 94 credits in the account. Plaintiff filed a motion to strike out portions of the answer, to wit, averments regarding the proviso that beneficiaries might be changed by the insured, and the averment regarding the right of the company to deduct, from the face of the policy, any indebtedness the insured owed the association, which averment was composed of the paragraph we have excerpted from the policy. The reason assigned in the motion to have these averments struck out of the answer was that the one regarding the change of beneficiary was not coupled with an allegation that the insured had at any time changed the beneficiary, and therefore constituted no defense, and the averment regarding the right of the company to deduct from the face of the policy the indebtedness it held against the insured was no defense, in view of section 7895, Rev. St. 1899 (Ann. St. 1906, p. 3749), which provides that any policy of insurance issued on the life of a person, and expressed to be for the benefit of the wife of the insured, shall inure to her separate benefit, independent of the creditors, executors, and administrators of the husband. Another reason assigned for striking out said allegation of the answer was that, under the policy contract as pleaded, defendant had no right to make any deduction from the principal sum named in the policy. What was meant by the latter reason is that the proviso in the policy for the deduction of any indebtedness due the association under some provision of the policy, or otherwise, including a balance due for premiums, intends only that an indebtedness arising under the policy, whether for premiums or something else, can be deducted, but not other debts. That is to say, plaintiff contends the paragraph is to be construed according to the doctrine ejusdem generis. The court sustained the motion to strike out, and defendant having declined to plead further, judgment was entered for plaintiff in the sum of $2,000, with interest from April 18, 1907. Thereupon the present appeal was prosecuted.

In the brief for respondent it is admitted the provision in the policy for a deduction from the face of it of any indebtedness due the insurance company from...