Beley v. Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance

95 A.2d 202, 373 Pa. 231, 36 A.L.R. 2d 996, 1953 Pa. LEXIS 297

• Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 14, 1953
• Docket: Appeal, 29
• Status: Published

Opinions

Opinion by

Mr. Chief Justice Horace Stern,

Is the present struggle in Korea a “war” within the meaning of that term as employed in a certain life insurance policy? That is the question for decision in this litigation. In the action brought to recover on such a policy the County Court of Allegheny County awarded to plaintiff, under the terms of the policy, only a return of the amount of the premiums which had been paid thereon. On appeal, the Superior Court reversed and entered judgment for plaintiff for both the face amount of the policy and the additional accidental death benefit. From that decision (171 Pa. Superior Ct. 253, 90 A. 2d 597) we allowed an appeal, the determination of the issue involved being obviously of concern to many beneficiaries of identical or similar policies.

Andrew Beley, serving with a United States Army infantry division in the conflict in Korea, was killed in action on March 7, 1951 while serving with the United States contingent of the United Nations forces. On May 1, 1945, Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance Company, defendant, had issued a policy on his life in favor of his mother, Julia Beley, the present plaintiff. The policy was in the amount of $1,000 with a supplementary contract attached which provided for double indemnity in case of external, violent and accidental death. One of the provisions of the policy was that “In the event that the Insured engages in military or naval service in the time of war, the liability of the Company shall be limited to the return of the premiums paid hereunder, unless the Insured shall have previously secured from the Company a permit to engage in such service.” (Admittedly, no such permit had been secured.)

In connection with the additional accidental death benefit there were provisions as follows: “Risks Not AssumedThe Company shall not be liable for the additional Accidental Death Benefit specified above if said death shall result by reason of any of the following: ... (d) Military, air or naval service in time of war. (e) Any work in connection with actual warfare, riot, insurrection, police duties or any act incidental thereto, either on land or water. . . .”

“Termination: — These provisions for the additional Accidental Death Benefit shall immediately terminate: ... (b) if the Insured shall at any time, voluntarily or involuntarily, engage in military, air or naval service in time of war; . . . .”

The Company refused payment of the face amount of the policy on the ground that the insured was engaged in military service “in the time of war” and refused payment of. the accidental death benefit on the additional ground that the death of the insured had resulted by reason of such service. In our opinion, the Superior Court properly entered judgment for plaintiff for the whole amount of her claim.

The facts concerning the Korean situation are, briefly, as follows: — By the charter of the United Nations there was established the principle of mutual assistance, and certain provisions were embodied therein for insuring effective and prompt action for the maintenance of international peace. In pursuance of that object Congress, in the Mutual Defense Assistance Act of October 6, 1949, 63 Stat. 716, authorized the President to furnish military assistance, as therein provided, to the Republic of Korea and the Republic of the Philippines. On June 25, 1950, a commission having reported that North Korean forces had made an unprovoked assault upon the Republic of Korea, the Security Council denounced the attack as a breach of international peace, called upon the authorities of North Korea to withdraw their armed forces forthwith, and asked all members of the United Nations to render every assistance in the execution of the resolution. On June 27, 1950, the President made a public statement in which he referred to this call by the Security Council and stated that under such circumstances he had ordered United States air and sea forces to give the Korean government troops cover and support. On that same day the Security Council by a second resolution recommended that the members of the United Nations furnish whatever assistance to the Republic of Korea might be necessary in order to repel the armed attack and to restore international peace and security in the area. On July 7, 1950, still another resolution of the Security Council recommended that all members provide military forces and other assistance for a unified command under the United States, requested the United States to designate the commander of such forces, and authorized the use of the United Nations’ flag in the action against the North Korean invaders.

Although Congress has, in certain enactments, recognized that military forces of the United States are operating in Korea and has appropriated funds for the support of the armed forces there, it is obvious from the above recital of events that there was not, nor ever has been, any declaration of war by Congress against any other country, state or nation, but merely a dispatch to Korea by Presidential order of military, naval and air forces of the United States in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and the recommendations of the Security Council. Since, therefore, it is Congress that has the power under the Constitution to declare war, and since that power is exclusive (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U. S. 579, 642), it is clear that the action, being waged in Korea is not a “war” within what may be termed the “constitutional” or “legal” sense of that term. Defendant urges, however, that it is in fact a war, because what started apparently as a minor “police action” has developed, by reason of its duration, its bitterness, and the number of its casualties, into a sanguinary struggle of grave proportions, and urges further that the connotation of the word “war” in the Company’s insurance policies should not be limited to a formally declared war, but embraces any clash of arms in which the methods of war are pursued, and especially where the conflict is, as in Korea, of such extensive dimensions. The trouble with this argument is that if the word “war” in such policies were to be interpreted as other than one declared by Congress, courts would be utterly at sea whenever the question arose as to whether certain expeditions in which United States forces were engaged constituted a war. It has been pointed out in a report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives that during the period between 1798 and 1945 there were some 150 or more occasions on which our military forces were engaged in various countries, notably in China, Mexico, Central America and Caribbean Republics, in the course of some of which incidents there were really serious engagements and many casualties. Who, then, would be the tribunal to decide whether such an undeclared Conflict did or did not amount to a “war,” —a jury, a court? What would be the criterion of decision, — the number of troops involved, the number of casualties, the duration of the hostilities? If, for example, Beley had lost his life' in action in Korea a day or two after our troops first arrived there, would a war have then existéd, or would it not have become a war until the magnitude Of the'struggle finally revealed itself and'- the casualty-lists'became so distressingly long and frequent?

Obviously the right of án insured’ to -recover under a life insurance policy-should not-be left to depend-upon the determination óf a question not’ governable by’ any definite test either legal or factual; on the contrary, its terms and conditions should be interpreted according to some definite and uniform standard. Even were it to be conceded that the meaning of any of its terms was really involved in doubt, that doubt, according to all established canons of construction, should be resolved in favor of the insured. A policy of life insurance is a highly technical instrument, drawn up presumably with meticulous care by legal experts on behalf of the Insurance Company, and who not only intend to use all terms in their legal sense but know how to accomplish that result; it may be assumed, therefore, that if defendant had here meant to invest the term “war” with a broader connotation than its “constitutional” or “legal” intendment, it would have effected this by the addition of words indicating such an intention as, for example, “declared or undeclared” war.

The existence or non-existence of a state of Avar is a political, not a judicial, question, and it is only if and when a formal declaration of war has been made by the political department of the government that judicial cognizance may be taken thereof; when so made it becomes binding upon the judiciary: Bishop v. Jones & Petty, 28 Texas 294, 319, 320; Perkins v. Rogers, 35 Indiana 124, 167; Hamilton v. M’Claughry, 136 Fed. 445, 449; Verano v. DeAngelis Coal Co., 41 F. Supp. 954. An exact question involving the application of this principle arose in connection with the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, war with Japan not being officially declared by Congress until the day following, December 8. As we all knoAV, an appalling number of lives were lost in that infamous attack, and yet, in a majority of the cases involving the interpretation of the word “war” as employed in life insurance policies similar to the one here in question, it was held that war did not exist on December 7, and therefore the beneficiaries of such policies were entitled to recover: West v. Palmetto State Life Insurance Co., 202 S. C. 422 (25 S.E. 2d 475); Rosenau v. Idaho Mutual Benefit Association, 65 Idaho 408, 145 P. 2d 227; Savage v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 57 F. Supp. 620; Pang v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, 14 C.C.H. Life Cases 496 (37 Hawaiian Rep. 208).

The provision in the present policy exempting defendant from liability for the additional accidental death benefit if death should result by reason of “any work in connection with actual warfare, riot, insurrection, police duties or any act incidental thereto, either on land or water,” evidently refers to civil Avork as distinguished from the immediately preceding exemption in the case of “military, air or naval service,” and therefore has no application to the present case. It may be noted, hoAvever, in passing, that in this particular clause the term “actual warfare” is used, indicating an appreciation on the part of the insurer of the distinction between the more technical term “war,” and the general term “actual warfare.”

Defendant directs some argument to the proposition that, even if it be held that the insured was not engaged in military service in time of war as far as the action in Korea is concerned, the United States was still-at war'.with'the Axis Powers when Beley was killéd .on March 7, 1951.’ Although the Constitution provides that Congress -is the authority to declare war, there is no provision in- regard to an authority which should' have thé- power -to declare the' termination of war. -I-t is true that 'for certain -special- purpose's it may be- important -órevén--necessary for Congress or the President - to' declare officially 'á date marking a time when a wáf- is'-to-be-' éo'ñsidéred'.as'legally ended'; indeed different such1 dates-may 'be -designated for various purposes. For the particular purpose here involved there was no need for a pronouncement that the war with Germany, Italy and Japan had in fact terminated some six years before Beley’s death, although it may be added, as pointed out by the Superior Court in Harding v. Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance Company, 171 Pa. Superior Ct. 236, 241, that a joint resolution of Congress of July 25, 1947 (61 Stat. 449) did declare that, in order to terminate certain emergency and war powers, the war with those countries should be deemed ended as of that date.

The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.