Williams v. First Colony Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 22 March 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 15934,15934 |
| Citation | 593 P.2d 534 |
| Parties | Mavis WILLIAMS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FIRST COLONY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Allen Meikle, Kenneth A. Bischoff andLowell D. Smith, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Utah Supreme Court |
John P. Ashton of Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Robert M. McDonald of Jones, Waldo, Holbrook & McDonough, Richard W. Campbell of Olmstead, Stine & Campbell, Salt Lake City, John T. Caine of Richards, Caine & Richards, Ogden, for defendants and respondents.
Plaintiff Mavis Williams seeks to recover $15,000.00 as the beneficiary of an insurance policy which was projected to be issued by the defendant First Colony Life Insurance Company on the life of her husband. On the basis of facts shown in the pleadings, documents, affidavits and depositions (the submissions), the district court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the insurance had never taken effect because the deceased had not complied with the plainly stated prerequisite condition of taking a medical examination prior to his death.
About January 1976, the plaintiff, who was employed at Hill Air Force Base, requested one Allen Meikle, a friend who also worked there and was also a licensed insurance agent and broker, to attempt to obtain life insurance coverage for her 60 year old husband, Dean Williams. Mr. Williams, who had a history of high blood pressure, had previously had insurance, on a rated up basis, with Occidental Life Insurance Company for whom Mr. Meikle was an agent.
Pursuant to Mrs. Williams' request, Mr. Meikle engaged in efforts to locate an insurance company willing to insure her husband. Mr. Meikle asked another insurance agent, one Kenneth Bischoff, for his assistance and provided him with information concerning Mr. Williams. After that information had been sent to various insurance companies, the defendant First Colony notified Mr. Bischoff, on February 18, 1976, that it would be willing to provide insurance on Mr. Williams on certain conditions, and provided the forms necessary to process the application. According to Mr. Bischoff's deposition, he then met with Mr. Meikle and informed him of "the requirements that Mr. Williams would have to take care of before the policy would be in force."
On the evening of April 13, 1976, Mr. Meikle took the application to the Williams' home in Ogden. It is without dispute that he discussed with Mr. and Mrs. Williams the various aspects of the proposed insurance: the amount of coverage, the premium to be charged, and including the fact that defendant First Colony required Mr. Williams to submit to a medical examination. In his affidavit, Mr. Meikle avers that in their discussion it was stated so plainly that there could be no "misunderstanding on the necessity of the physical examination" and that the application for insurance "was submitted to Mr. Williams subject to a physical examination." Awareness of this requirement is acknowledged by Mrs. Williams in her deposition as quoted below.
Both plaintiff and her husband signed the application and the plaintiff gave Mr. Meikle a $65.88 check for the payment of the first premium. He gave her a "conditional receipt," the contents of which are set forth below, and left the medical examination form with Mr. Williams with directions that he take it to a Dr. Alford.
The completed portion of the application and the premium check was sent to the defendant and Mr. Williams was scheduled for a physical examination on April 20, 1976. However, he died of a cardiovascular ailment the day before the scheduled exam. Neither Mrs. Williams nor Mr. Meikle gave defendant First Colony notice of Mr. Williams' death. But when the company later learned of his death, it tendered a refund for the amount of the premium that had been paid. The plaintiff refused the tender of the money and brought this action.
The pertinent language of the conditional receipt which was given to the plaintiff states:
Unless the conditions specified in Paragraph "FIRST" are fulfilled exactly, No insurance will become effective prior to policy delivery. Neither the agent nor the medical examiner is authorized to waive these conditions.
It recited that payment of $65.88 was received in connection with the application. Then, in bold face letters, the following appears:
FIRST. CONDITIONS PRECEDENT UNDER WHICH INSURANCE MAY BECOME EFFECTIVE PRIOR TO POLICY DELIVERY.
If the following conditions shall have been fulfilled exactly:
(a) All medical examinations, tests, x-rays, and electrocardiograms required by published Company rules Must be completed.
Then insurance as provided by the terms and conditions of the policy . . . Will become effective on the latest of the following dates: (a) the date of Part I of this application; (b) the date of Part I of the application for any Companion Policy, if applicable; (c) The date of completion of all medical examinations, tests, x-rays, and electrocardiograms Required by published Company rules; and (d) the Date of Issue, if any, requested in the application.
Plaintiff argues: (1), that the conditional receipt is ambiguous because it does not clearly state when the policy coverage was to become effective; and (2), that the defendant did not discharge its duty of calling the limiting conditions expressly to her attention. She therefore urges that the facts surrounding the solicitation of the policy and representations made by Mr. Meikle to her and her husband should be examined into and that she is entitled to have a jury pass upon the issue as to what the parties intended and whether Mr. Williams was insured by the defendant when he died.
In response thereto, the defendant points to the clarity of the conditions as stated, and to statements in plaintiff's deposition about the meeting on the evening of April 13th between Mr. Meikle, herself and her husband:
Q. Okay. What was your understanding of the purpose of the check?
A. That was the first premium. $65.88 was the amount of the check.
Q. Okay. Is there anything else that you can remember that was talked about regarding the effectiveness of this policy or anything that you or your husband would be required to do regarding this policy, other than to make your payments to keep it in effect as you understood?
A. My husband to meet with the doctor for a physical, which we was assured was a routine matter.
Q. A routine matter. Now what do you mean by that?
A. Mr. Meikle said they had all his medical records so that this was just a routine process.
Q. Mr. Meikle said it was routine. What is your understanding of that word 'routine' in this sense, that it was insignificant?
A. No. It was just filling a requirement.
Defendant's position is that it thus appears that the plaintiff's own testimony is in agreement with the clear language of the receipt, and also with Mr. Meikle's unrefuted averments, that the plaintiff and her deceased husband were made aware that Mr. Williams would have to take a medical examination as a prerequisite to the issuance of and coverage under an insurance policy.
In regard to this controversy, it is appropriate to make certain observations. The documents executed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quaker State Minit-Lube, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., Civ. No. 91-C-461J.
....... Mark J. Williams, Hanson, Epperson & Smith, Salt Lake City, UT, Lawrence A. Levy, Rivkin, ...at 85. Quaker State points to cases such as LDS Hospital v. Capitol Life Ins. Co., 765 P.2d 857 (Utah 1988), which in considering the use of the ... point, the existence of a covered "occurrence" is determined first with reference to the conduct or event causing the injury (in Geary, the ... Williams v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 593 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979)." 868 F. Supp. 1329 990 ......
-
Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n
...P.2d 663, 665 n. 1 (Utah 1985); Rice, Melby Enters., Inc. v. Salt Lake County, 646 P.2d 696, 698 (Utah 1982); Williams v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 593 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979); Big Butte Ranch, Inc. v. Holm, 570 P.2d 690, 691 (Utah 1977); E.A. Strout W. Realty Agency, Inc. v. Broderick,......
-
U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v. Sandt, 900601
......first-party insurance protection for damages that exceed the ...Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 160 Ariz. 20, 770 P.2d 324, 326 (1989). ...1017, 1020 (1921); Colovos v. Home Life Ins. Co., 83 Utah 401, 28 P.2d 607, 610 (1934); see also ...Co., 568 P.2d 731, 734 (Utah 1977); Williams v. First Colony Life Ins. . Page 523. Co., 593 P.2d 534, ......
-
Pickhover v. Smith's Management Corp.
...is entitled to the broadest protection he could have reasonably understood to be provided by the policy."); Williams v. First Colony Life Ins. Co., 593 P.2d 534, 536 (Utah 1979) (ambiguity in insurance contract must be construed in favor of insured); Dienes v. Safeco Life Ins. Co., 21 Utah ......