Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Babin

Court of Appeals of Texas

Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Babin

125 S.W.2d 411

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedFebruary 24, 1939

DocketNo. 3387.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 125 S.W.2d 411 (Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Babin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Babin, 125 S.W.2d 411 (Tex. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This was an action by appellee, Anita Babin, against appellant, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, for benefits under its group policies Nos. G5039 and G554S. On trial to a jury judgment was entered in appellee’s favor for the relief prayed for, from which appellant has duly prosecuted its appeal.

We agree with appellant that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and judgment here rendered against ■appellee that she take nothing. The con•ditions of these policies as to proof of loss were given by this court, and their legal ■effect discussed, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Kornegay, 93 S.W.2d 164; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Warner, 94 S.W.2d 514; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 94 S.W.2d 519; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 99 S.W.2d 946; Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Dugas, 91 S.W.2d 757; Lewis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 94 S.W.2d 499. In the cases cited we held that the proofs of loss were filed too late; in the case at bar there was a longer delay in filing the proof of loss than in any of the cases cited — almost eight years.

As an excuse for her delay, appellee plead “ignorance,” the same plea on identical facts reviewed by us in the Lewis case, supra. There we held that the facts did not excuse the delay.

The only distinguishing fact in this case is the coverture of appellee, which was plead as tolling the statutes of limitation against her cause of action, but not as an éxcuse for her delay in filing proofs of loss. However, the issue is immaterial. The statutes of limitation do not excuse appellee’s failure to furnish proofs of loss. Suggs v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 71 Tex. 579. 9 S.W. 676, 1 L.R.A. 847; Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Williams, Tex. Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 661.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court in favor of appellee must be reversed and judgment here rendered that she take nothing.

Reversed and rendered.

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

WALKER, Chief Justice.

This was an action by appellee, Anita Babin, against appellant, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, for benefits under its group policies Nos. G5039 and G554S. On trial to a jury judgment was entered in appellee’s favor for the relief prayed for, from which appellant has duly prosecuted its appeal.

We agree with appellant that the judgment of the lower court must be reversed and judgment here rendered against ■appellee that she take nothing. The con•ditions of these policies as to proof of loss were given by this court, and their legal ■effect discussed, in Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Kornegay, 93 S.W.2d 164; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Warner, 94 S.W.2d 514; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Smith, 94 S.W.2d 519; Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Bowman, 99 S.W.2d 946; Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. v. Dugas, 91 S.W.2d 757; Lewis v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co., 94 S.W.2d 499. In the cases cited we held that the proofs of loss were filed too late; in the case at bar there was a longer delay in filing the proof of loss than in any of the cases cited — almost eight years.

As an excuse for her delay, appellee plead “ignorance,” the same plea on identical facts reviewed by us in the Lewis case, supra. There we held that the facts did not excuse the delay.

The only distinguishing fact in this case is the coverture of appellee, which was plead as tolling the statutes of limitation against her cause of action, but not as an éxcuse for her delay in filing proofs of loss. However, the issue is immaterial. The statutes of limitation do not excuse appellee’s failure to furnish proofs of loss. Suggs v. Travelers’ Ins. Co., 71 Tex. 579. 9 S.W. 676, 1 L.R.A. 847; Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Williams, Tex. Civ.App., 62 S.W.2d 661.

It follows that the judgment of the lower court in favor of appellee must be reversed and judgment here rendered that she take nothing.

Reversed and rendered.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 S.W.2d 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connecticut-general-life-ins-co-v-babin-texapp-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack