Williams v. U.S. Cas. Co.

• Decision Date: 05 May 1909
• Citation: 64 S.E. 510,150 N.C. 597
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES CASUALTY CO.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

64 S.E. 510

150 N.C. 597

WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES CASUALTY CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 5, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Wilkies County; Justice, Judge.

Action by A. B. Williams against the United States Casualty Company on a sick benefit policy. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. No error.

There can be no recovery under a sick benefit policy providing that notice of sickness must be given within 10 days after the contraction of the disease insured against where no notice is given until 50 days thereafter.

F. D. Hackett and Finley & Hendren, for appellant.

W. W. Barber, for appellee.

CLARK, C.J.

The plaintiff seeks to recover on a sick benefit policy. The policy promises a payment of $8 a week, not exceeding 26 consecutive weeks, for loss of time from illness, if caused exclusively and directly by any one of certain diseases specifically named. Then follows the following provision in the policy: "Provided such disease is contracted not earlier than 15 days after this policy takes effect and independently of any and all other causes, renders the insured wholly and continuously unable to transact each and every part of the duties pertaining to the occupation described herein and necessitates continuous confinement indoors and treatment by a regularly qualified physician, and provided written notice of such disease be given by the insured or his attending physician to the company at its office within 10 days after its contraction." It is admitted that the plaintiff did not give the notice in 10 days-in fact, he delayed for 50 days. This provision was doubtless intended to prevent imposition. But, at any rate, the plaintiff accepted the policy with that provision, and he is bound by his contract. He did not comply with the conditions which would entitle him to recover, and his honor properly held that he could not recover. Alexander v. Insurance Co. (at this term) 64 S.E. 432. If one should suddenly become unconscious as from apoplexy, for instance, so as to be unable to give the stipulated notice within 10 days, whether he would be excused and therefore entitled to recover notwithstanding the failure to give notice is a question which does not arise upon the evidence in this case.

No error.