Williams v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia
| Decision Date | 14 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 50852,50852 |
| Citation | 367 So.2d 922 |
| Parties | Mary WILLIAMS v. LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF GEORGIA. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Zuccaro, Riley, Pintard & Brown, Edwin E. Kerstine, Natchez, for appellant.
Brandon, Handy & Blough, Jim C. Blough, Natchez, for appellee.
Before ROBERTSON, WALKER and LEE, JJ.
LEE, Justice, for the Court:
Mary Williams filed suit in the Circuit Court of Adams County against Life Insurance Company of Georgia seeking recovery of double indemnity benefits in the sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000). Life Insurance Company of Georgia interposed an affirmative defense claiming that the suit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations, the trial court sustained the affirmative defense and entered judgment for the defendant. Mary Williams appeals and assigns as errors the following:
(1) The insurance policy issued to Thomas C. Williams by the Life Insurance Company of Georgia is a group policy with provisions giving comprehensive coverage to the insured and as such this policy is specifically exempt from the three-year statute of limitations governing only accident and health insurance under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 83-9-1 et seq. (1972).
(2) The insurance policy issued to Thomas C. Williams by Life Insurance Company of Georgia is a group policy containing comprehensive coverage and is specifically exempted from Title 83, Chapter 9, Mississippi Code Annotated (1972) and its three-year statute of limitations by virtue of Section 83-9-17 and thus the court as a matter of law must apply the six-year statute of limitations under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 15-1-49 (1972).
On December 2, 1970, Thomas C. Williams, an employee of Southwest Fishing and Rental Tool, Inc., filed an application for insurance and Policy # 13902-1 was issued to him effective December 2, 1970, the same date as the application. On March 19, 1973, Mr. Williams died as a result of drinking ethyl alcohol and taking a barbituate which had been prescribed for another individual. Proof of loss was filed by appellant, beneficiary in said policy, and on June 28, 1973, Richard C. Livingston, Claims Supervisor of the Group Claims Department, Life Insurance Company of Georgia, forwarded to appellant, in care of her attorney, a check in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) for death benefits under Part I of the policy, together with a release for execution by appellant. The release reserved for appellant her right to pursue the accidental death benefit claimed under the policy, and the release, on its face, showed that it came from the Group Claims Department, Life Insurance Company of Georgia.
On July 6, 1977, four (4) years and three (3) months subsequent to accrual of the claim, appellant filed suit for the $20,000 accidental death coverage (double indemnity). All benefits provided in the policy are as follows:
"SCHEDULE OF COVERAGE
Part I: Life Insurance, before Insured's 65th
birthday ............................... $20,000.00
amount on and after 65th birthday ...... $10,000.00
Part II: Accidental Death, Dismemberment
and Loss of Sight, before Insured's
65th birthday Principal Sum of ......... $20,000.00
on and after 65th birthday Principal
Sum of ................................. $10,000.00
Part III: Weekly Income Benefit .................. $ Nil
Part IV: Maximum Daily Hospital Benefit ......... $36.00
Cash Deductible ........................ $ Nil
Part V: Convalescent Nursing Home, Maximum
Daily Benefit .......................... $18.00
Part VI: Surgical, Aggregate Limit .............. $500.00
Part VII: Diagnostic X-Ray and Laboratory
Examination Expense, Aggregate Limit ... $50.00
Part VIII: Emergency Accident, Maximum Benefit .... $25.00
Part IX: Radiotherapy Expenses, Aggregate
Limit .................................. $400.00
Part X: Major Medical Expense, Maximum
Benefit ................................ $10,000.00
Are Dependants Covered ............................. ? No
Initial Premium .................................... $27.66"
Appellee contends that Mississippi Code Annotated Section 83-9-5(k), which is a part of Chapter 9, Title 83, Accident and Health Insurance, Mississippi Code Annotated (1972), governs here. It states:
Appellant claims that Mississippi Code Annotated Section 83-9-17(3) exempts the present policy from application of the three-year statute of limitations and prevents application of said Section 83-9-5(k). The section sets forth:
"Nothing in sections 83-9-1 to 83-9-21 shall apply to or affect (1) any policy of workmen's compensation insurance or any policy of liability insurance with or without supplementary coverage therein; or (2) any policy or contract of reinsurance; or (3) Any blanket or group policy of insurance; Or (4) Life insurance, endowment or annuity contracts, or contract supplemental thereto which contain only such provisions relating to accident and sickness insurance as (a) provide additional benefits in case of death or dismemberment or loss of sight by accident, or as (b) operate to safeguard such contracts against lapse, or to give a special surrender value or special benefit or an annuity in the event that the insured or annuitant shall become totally and permanently disabled, as defined by the contract or supplemental...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McFarland v. Utica Fire Ins. Co.
...Co. v. Steele, 373 So.2d 797, 799 (Miss.1979); Cruse v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 369 So.2d 762, 764 (Miss.1979); Williams v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 367 So.2d 922, 925 (Miss.1979); Continental Cas. Co. v. Hester, 360 So.2d 695, 696-7 (Miss.1978); and further, of McGory's implicit holding that......
-
Warwick v. Matheney, 89-CA-0072
...yet it is conspicuously silent as to any time within which these corporations have to approve the contract. Williams. v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 367 So.2d 922, 925 (Miss.1979); Clark v. Carter, 351 So.2d 1333, 1336 2. Matheney had no control over when or whether these corporations would a......
-
Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Garriga
...general rule that provisions of an insurance contract are to be construed strongly against the drafter. Williams v. Life Insurance Company of Georgia, 367 So.2d 922, 925 (Miss.1979). Any ambiguities in an insurance contract must be construed against the insurer and in favor of the insured a......
-
Shutze v. Credithrift of America, Inc.
...clause most strongly against the drafter/lender. Trapp v. Tidwell, 418 So.2d 786, 792 (Miss.1982), citing Williams v. Life Ins. Co. of Georgia, 367 So.2d 922 (Miss.1979). The 1983 and 1985 deeds of trust made no references or other attempts to relate back to, as renewals of, or as future ad......