Clark v. Southeastern Life Ins.

85 S.E. 407, 101 S.C. 249, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 111
CourtSupreme Court of South Carolina
DecidedMay 5, 1915
Docket9094
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 85 S.E. 407 (Clark v. Southeastern Life Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of South Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Clark v. Southeastern Life Ins., 85 S.E. 407, 101 S.C. 249, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 111 (S.C. 1915).

Opinion

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Chief Justice Gary.

This is an action on a policy of life insurance. On the 23d of December, 1905, the defendant issued to Joseph M. Blair a policy of insurance on his life in the sum of $2,000, in favor of his children, the plaintiffs herein. Joseph M. Blair died on the 2d of September, 1911.

The defendant, after denying certain allegations of the complaint, set up the following as a defense:

(1) “It alleges that the policy referred to in the complaint was issued, and was to be of force in consideration of $121.66, to be paid, in advance, and of the payment of a like sum on December 5 th at noon, in every year thereafter during the continuance of the said policy, and the policy provided that a failure to pay any renewal premium or installment thereof, or any note or other obligation given therefor, would render the policy null and void.”

(2) “That the insured failed to pay the premium which fell due on December 15, 1908, but executed for said premium four notes of the amounts and the dates hereinafter indicated, to wit, $30 due March 15, 1909; $30 due June 15, 1909; $30 due September 15, 1909; $31.66 due December 15, 1909. That all of said notes contain the following clause, to wit: ‘Said policy, including all conditions therein for surrender or 'continuance as a paid-up term policy, shall, without notice to any party or parties interested therein, be null and void on the failure to pay this note at maturity.’ ”

(3) “That when the note which fell due on March 15, 1909, became payable, the insured was unable to pay the same, and thereupon it was extended by mutual agreement to May 15, 1909, when the insured was still unable to pay it. Thereupon the insured made therefor his two notes to this defendant, each in the sum of $15, due, respectively, June 15, 1909, and July 15, 1909.”

*252 4. “That all of the said notes and renewals contained the clause hereinbefore set forth, and were conditioned that the policy set forth in the complaint would become void on the failure to pay any of the said notes.”

(5) “That none of the said notes, or any part thereof, were paid, ñor were the premiums which matured, respectively, on December 15, 1909, and December 15, 1910, ever paid by the insured or by any other person, and that by the terms of the said policy and the terms of the said notes the said policy, with all rights thereunder, became void on the failure to pay the said notes and the said premiums, or any of them, as they respectively matured.”

(6) “That under the terms of the policy, however, the insured, by reason of the payment of the premiums falling due prior to December 15, 1908, was entitled to have the said policy extended from December 15, 1908, to April 2, 1910, but that said policy expired on said date.”

. The following statement appears in the record :

“The entire policy was in evidence, but it is agreed for the purpose of this appeal that the following statement of its contents includes all the matters essential to the determination of this case: It was issued by the Southeastern Life Insurance Company to Joseph Mayo Blair on December 23, 1905, and 'in consideration of the application for this insurance, which application is copied hereon, and made a part of this contract, and in further considération of the sum of $121.66, to be paid in advance, and of the payment of a like sum, on the 15th day of December at noon, in every year thereafter during the continuance of this policy,’ insured the life of the said Joseph Mayo Blair in the sum of $2,000, payable at his death to Alice, Elizabeth M. and Joseph M. Blair, Jr., share and share alike, or to the survivors of them, subject, however, to the conditions stated in the policy:
“ ‘Premium Payments. — Failure to pay, when due, any renewal premium or installment, or any note or other obli *253 gation given as a lien against this policy, will render the contract null and void, except as is herein below provided. Any indebtedness to the company on account' of this contract will first be deducted in any settlement of this policy or any benefit hereunder.’
“ ‘Surrender Values. — . * * * (3) Only the president, vice president, secretary, or treasurer has power on behalf of the company to make or modify this or any contract of insurance, or to extend the time for paying the premium. (4) Premiums must be paid at the home office, unless otherwise provided, and in any case, in exchange for an official receipt, signed by one of the above-named officials, and countersigned by the person to whom payment is made. Upon failure to pay any annual premium after the third the company will extend automatically, as term insurance, the net amount insured by this policy, for the number of years and days named in table C below. The extension, as stated in table C, is. as follows: “After 3 years, 1 year and 108 days; after 4 years, 1 year and 269 days.” ’
“ ‘Assignments. — Any assignment of this policy mu§t be made in duplicate and sent to the home office, one to be retained by the company, and the other to be returned. The company has no responsibility for the validity of any assignment.’
“ ‘Reinstatement. — Should this policy lapse by reason of the nonpayment of any premium, it may be reinstated at any time within 12 months after lapse, provided the insured shall furnish evidence of good health satisfactory to the company, and pay all overdue premiums, and any indebtedness to the company, under this contract to date of reinstatement, with interest thereon.’
“Pasted in the policy is the receipt of the secretary of the company, dated December 16, 1905, for $121.66, ‘being the first premium upon policy No. 67, issued upon the life of Joseph M. Blair, continuing said policy in force to the *254 15th day of December, 1906, at noon. This receipt is subject to the condition of any and all notes which have been given, or may be given, for the amount of said premium, or any part thereof.’ ”

At the close of the testimony the defendant’s attorney requested his Honor, the presiding Judge, to direct a verdict for the defendant, on the following grounds:

“There is only one inference to be drawn from the testimony concerning the following matters, and that the following propositions are consequently made out, to wit: That there was a failure to pay the notes made for the premium .due December 15, 1908, and that under the contract, the policj'- became forfeited, except for the period of extended insurance, and this period expired prior to the death, of Mr. Blair. (2) There was no waiver of forfeiture of the policy operating to extend the life of the policy to the time of the death of Mr. Blair. (3) Under the testimony there was no estoppel on the part of the defendant preventing it from setting up forfeiture of insurance.”

The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs for the full amount,-less the unpaid notes, and'the defendant appealed.

1

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

Related

Phillips v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States
191 S.E. 226 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1937)
Welch v. New York Life Ins. Co.
189 S.E. 809 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1936)
Gilreath v. Security Life & Trust Co.
170 S.E. 445 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1933)
Geo. Washington Fire Ins. Co. v. Adams
145 S.E. 15 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1928)
Rowell v. Fireman's Insurance Co.
141 S.E. 20 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Allen v. Jefferson Standard Life Insurance
137 S.E. 214 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1927)
Cope v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
133 S.E. 440 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1926)
Hartford Fire Insurance Co. v. Etheredge
129 S.E. 428 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1925)
Gunter v. Philadelphia Life Insurance
125 S.E. 285 (Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1924)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
85 S.E. 407, 101 S.C. 249, 1915 S.C. LEXIS 111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-southeastern-life-ins-sc-1915.