Wright v. Public Sav. Life Ins. Co., 19796
| Decision Date | 01 April 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 19796,19796 |
| Citation | 204 S.E.2d 57,262 S.C. 285 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mamie Lee WRIGHT, Respondent, v. PUBLIC SAVINGS LIFE INSURANCE |
James A. Stuckey, Jr., Charleston, for appellant.
Richards, Caskey & Richards, Lancaster, for respondent.
In this action the plaintiff-respondent sought to recover actual and punitive damages for the allegedly fraudulent cancellation of certain insurance policies by the appellant-insurer, allegedly accompanied by a fraudulent act or acts. The jury returned a verdict in her favor for $600.00 actual damages and $1,700.00 punitive damages. The insurer appeals from the denial of its after-verdict motions.
While appellant's exceptions are 14 in number, only three questions are stated and argued and actually two of them constitute only one question to wit: was there any evidence of a fraudulent act accompanying the insurer's breach of its contract, which would support the recovery of punitive damages. The insurer apparently tacitly concedes that the judgment against it for actual damages is warranted by the evidence, but contends that it was entitled to a directed verdict as to punitive damages. In considering this contention it is elementary that the evidence and all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom have to be viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent-plaintiff. We proceed to review the evidence and state the facts in the light of such principle.
The plaintiff--Mamie Lee Wright is a resident of Lancaster, South Carolina; a person of limited education and 61 years of age at the time of the trial of this case in September, 1972. About May, 1963 she acquired from the insurer a life policy and a health and accident policy, the premium on one being 99cents per week and the premium on the other being 60cents per week. In 1964 she made a claim under the accident and health policy, which was paid in part, and again in 1970 she had occasion to make a claim thereunder because of illness with hypertension. In the early part of 1971, Mamie Lee was employed, apparently as a domestic or at odd jobs, working on several different jobs, and frequently getting home late at night. As a result, she and the agent collecting the debit for the insurer had some difficulty making contact, upon which Mamie Lee started making part of her premium payments at the Lancaster office of the insurer. Whenever she paid at the office she was given a temporary, conditional premium receipt, which later would be picked up by the debit agent when she was given credit by the agent for the payment on her premium receipt book. The agent on plaintiff's debit was one Shannon, who left the employment of the company on April 24, 1971, being succeeded by one Hunter.
On May 3, 1971, the Lancaster office reported to the home office of the insurer in Charleston, South Carolina that both of Mamie Lee's policies were lapsed for non-payment of premiums. There is abundant evidence to the effect that neither of Mamie Lee's policies were subject to lapse for non-payment as of that date. In addition to payments made to the debit agent, it is undisputed that she made the following payments to the Lancaster office: on April 15, the sum of $3.50 and on April 22 a like sum. It should be noted that the sum of $3.18 would pay the premiums on both policies for a period of two weeks. Subsequent to May 3, Mamie Lee paid at the office the sum of $10.15 on May 13, and the sum of $3.50 on May 19. On May 28, 1971, the manager of the Lancaster office informed Mamie Lee that both of her policies had been lapsed for non-payment of premiums, upon which she responded 'my insurance has lapsed, as many times as I've been coming up here paying my insurance * * * My Lord, I have to work too hard to be treated like this.' The response of the manager was merely 'you are getting too old anyhow.' She was then tendered the sum of $6.36 by way of refund and requested to sign a receipt, which she declined to sign and instead consulted counsel.
On May 13, the day that Mamie Lee made a payment in the amount of $10.15, a Multiple Revival Application was prepared without her knowledge, at least inferentially by the debit agent Hunter, which purported to apply for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hook v. Rothstein
...S.E.2d 333 (1967); Cudd v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 310 S.E.2d 830 (S.C.App., 1983); see also Wright v. Public Savings Life Ins., Co., 262 S.C. 285, 204 S.E.2d 57 (1974). No such showing has been made here. Moreover, whether or not Mr. Mangum and Mrs. Crawford would undergo the pr......
-
Edens v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
...heavily upon the conscience and judgment of the court or jury in determining its presence or absence. Wright v. Public Savings Life Ins. Co., 262 S.C. 285, 289, 204 S.E.2d 57, 59 (1974) (quoting Sullivan v. Calhoun, 117 S.C. 137, 139, 108 S.E. 189 (1921)); see also Harper, 290 S.C. at 119, ......
-
Tobolt v. Allstate Ins. Co.
...no reference to any such statute (Kirk v. Safeco Insurance Co. (1970), 28 Ohio Misc. 44, 273 N.E.2d 919; Wright v. Public Savings Life Insurance Co. (1974), 262 S.C. 285, 204 S.E.2d 57; Rex Insurance Co. v. Baldwin (1975), 163 Ind.App. 308, 323 N.E.2d 270; Vernon Fire & Casualty Insurance C......
-
Kocse v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...N.E.2d 270 (Ind.Ct.App.1975); Vernon Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Sharp, 316 N.E.2d 381 (Ind.Ct.App.1974); Wright v. Public Savings Life Ins. Co., 262 S.C. 285, 204 S.E.2d 57 (Sup.Ct.1974); State Farm General Ins. Co. v. Clifton, 86 N.M. 757, 527 P.2d 798 While it can hardly be said that these c......