Bergkvist v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum

City of New York Municipal Court

Bergkvist v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum

182 Misc. 252, 49 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2867

CourtCity of New York Municipal Court

DecidedMay 18, 1943

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 182 Misc. 252 (Bergkvist v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering City of New York Municipal Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bergkvist v. Supreme Council of the Royal Arcanum, 182 Misc. 252, 49 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2867 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Coleman, J.

The 1929 amendment to the defendant’s rules which required actions arising from the death of a member to be brought “ within three years from the date of such death ” was valid and bound the plaintiff’s husband, a member, and the plaintiff as beneficiary; and the fact that it was not until 1940 that the plaintiff learned of the death of her husband, which occurred in 1929, does not affect the situation. (Born v. Perkins, 173 App. Div. 214, affd. on opinion below 223 N. Y. 605.) Under the terms of the certificate of membership the defendant had the power to change its rules, and the changes would then control the agreement. (L. 1892, ch. 690, § 234; Insurance Law, § 457; cf. Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U. S. 531.) Cases denying power to a fraternal organization so to amend its by-laws or rules as to cut down substantive rights, as for example by reducing the amount to be received after once being fixed (cf. Evans v. So. Tier Masonic Relief Assn., 182 N. Y. 453), or delimiting the risk insured against (Weber v. Supreme Tent of K. of M., 172 N. Y. 490) are inapposite/ Here the change was a procedural one relating to the time within which an action must be brought. It limited that time to three years after death, absolutely and without reference to any period for filing proofs of loss — a not unreasonable limitation of time. The action was brought much too late.

The verdict is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Coleman, J.

The 1929 amendment to the defendant’s rules which required actions arising from the death of a member to be brought “ within three years from the date of such death ” was valid and bound the plaintiff’s husband, a member, and the plaintiff as beneficiary; and the fact that it was not until 1940 that the plaintiff learned of the death of her husband, which occurred in 1929, does not affect the situation. (Born v. Perkins, 173 App. Div. 214, affd. on opinion below 223 N. Y. 605.) Under the terms of the certificate of membership the defendant had the power to change its rules, and the changes would then control the agreement. (L. 1892, ch. 690, § 234; Insurance Law, § 457; cf. Royal Arcanum v. Green, 237 U. S. 531.) Cases denying power to a fraternal organization so to amend its by-laws or rules as to cut down substantive rights, as for example by reducing the amount to be received after once being fixed (cf. Evans v. So. Tier Masonic Relief Assn., 182 N. Y. 453), or delimiting the risk insured against (Weber v. Supreme Tent of K. of M., 172 N. Y. 490) are inapposite/ Here the change was a procedural one relating to the time within which an action must be brought. It limited that time to three years after death, absolutely and without reference to any period for filing proofs of loss — a not unreasonable limitation of time. The action was brought much too late.

The verdict is set aside and the complaint is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

182 Misc. 252, 49 N.Y.S.2d 466, 1943 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2867, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bergkvist-v-supreme-council-of-the-royal-arcanum-nynyccityct-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack