Connie Nell Lewis and Juanita Gibson Lewis v. United States
This text of 217 F.2d 88 (Connie Nell Lewis and Juanita Gibson Lewis v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
Filed on May 22,1953, by Juanita Gibson Lewis, the widow and principal beneficiary of Harvey C. Lewis, who died on June 11, 1945, on behalf of herself and as next friend for their minor child, Connie Nell Lewis, his contingent beneficiary, the suit was brought to recover total disability benefits provided for in National Life Insurance Company policy No. N-15-931-199 issued to deceased on March 24, 1944.
The claim, a double barrelled one, was: that at the time of assured’s death on June 11, 1945, he was, and had been since February 23, 1945, when the policy was in force by payment of premiums, totally and permanently disabled, and the policy was therefore in full force and effect; that on July 8, 1945, Juanita Lewis, as widow and principal beneficiary, inquired of the Veterans Administration regarding the insurance policy and thereby in effect made a claim at once for the proceeds of the policy and for waiver of premiums under Sec. 802 (r) of the National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940, as amended;1 that in response to her inquiry she was advised that the policy had lapsed when in truth and in fact by virtue of Section 802(r) above, the insurance was in full force and effect; that in 1950, she requested a reopening of the claim, and on August 13, 1951, she filed on behalf of the minor, the contingent beneficiary, a claim under the policy for total disability and the claim was on September 9, 1952, denied; that the interest of said minor beneficiary accrued on the date of the death of the insured, and if it be held that she, as principal beneficiary was culpably negligent in not prosecuting her claim and that it is barred, the claim and right of the minor contingent plaintiff, because of her continuing minority, persists as valid and undefeated by laches, limitation or other bar.
The defenses were: failure of the complaint to state a recoverable claim; a denial that the mere inquiry about the policy made by the principal beneficiary in 1945 was or could have been a claim for waiver of premiums or for the proceeds of the policy and if it was the latter, the reply by the Veterans Administration on February 28, 1946, was a denial of such claim; an admission that a claim was filed in 1951 on behalf of the minor contingent beneficiary; and an allegation that the principal beneficiary being still in life, the contingent beneficiary had and has no interest entitling her to make a claim or sue upon it.
The issues thus joined and the facts stipulated, plaintiffs urged upon the district judge: that Sec. 802(r), supra, was self operating; that the admitted facts established compliance therewith and protected the rights of both principal and contingent beneficiary and that the minority of the contingent beneficiary protected and preserved her right to sue.
The defendant, on the other hand, insisted: that Sections 802(r), supra, and 802(n), Title 38 U.S.C.A., requiring an application for waiver of premiums, must be considered together and as requiring in this case a timely application by the principal beneficiary for waiver of premiums; that, so considered, the evidence furnishes no basis for the judgment sought; and that the principal beneficiary’s failure to present a claim for waiver of premiums within one year after insured’s death and her failure to [90]*90bring an action within the six years limited by 38 U.S.C.A. § 445,2 has completely barred the right to sue.
The district judge, agreeing with the defendant, gave judgment accordingly. Appealing from this judgment on an agreed statement of facts,3 plaintiffs are here insisting that in so doing the district judge erred.
We do not think SQ_ 0n the contrary> we are of the clear opinion that upon the facts agreed to and under the authority of the controlling cases,4 the record wholly fails to support appellants’ conten[91]*91tion that under the provisions of Sec. 802 (r) the policy was automatically kept in force. We are, therefore, of the further opinion that the failure of the principal beneficiary to apply for waiver of premiums and her failure to make a timely claim and to bring suit within the time limited in 38 U.S.C.A. § 445, prevents the bringing and maintenance of this suit.5
The judgment is affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
217 F.2d 88, 1954 U.S. App. LEXIS 3087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/connie-nell-lewis-and-juanita-gibson-lewis-v-united-states-ca5-1954.