Farmers Union Insurance v. Wilder

53 N.W. 587, 35 Neb. 572, 1892 Neb. LEXIS 350
Nebraska Supreme Court·Decided November 2, 1892·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Maxwell, Ch. J.

This action was brought by defendant in error against the plaintiff in error to recover for the loss of a barn, etc. It is alleged in the petition:

“That at the time hereinafter mentioned the defendant was, and still is, a corporation duly organized under the laws of the state of Nebraska, with lawful authority to make contracts of insurance against fire.

“Second — On the 29th day of December, 1888, the plaintiff was the owner of a barn and granary situated on section 2, township 5, range 10 west, in Adams county, state of Nebraska, and a large amount of oats, to-wit, 2,-000 bushels, in said granary, said barn and granary being adjoining each other, and together of the value of $550, and the said corn in said granary being of the value of $200.

“Third — On the lOth day of January, 1889, the defendant, in consideration of $16 to it paid on the said 29th day of December, 1888, as a membership fee, and a further consideration of a premium contract for the sum of $48, to be paid in assessments as specified, made, and delivered to the plaintiff a policy of insurance on said barn, granary, and grain therein, for the period of five years, from January 24, 1889, in which policy the insurance on said barn is [574] stated at $500, and the oats as grain at $200, but the insurance of the granary to the amount of $50, by mistake of the said defendant, was omitted in said policy.”

Then follows a statement of the loss, etc., and facts showing the liability of the company.

The defendant below in its answer admitted the policy, but alleged that it contained the following provision: “If any assessment be not paid within thirty days after date of same, this certificate shall thereupon lapse and cease to be in force, and if remittance be received after date of such lapse no indemnity will be paid for any loss happening between the date of such expiration and receipt of such remittance ; but the amount so received shall be placed to the credit of the member and he shall be reinstated and this certificate renewed; ” that the said Wilder had failed and neglected to pay the following assessments, to-wit: March, 1889, $1.28; June, 1889, $1.60; September, 1889, $1.60; and for that reason the said policy of insurance had lapsed and was null and void at the time and previous to the pretended loss by fire, and was not binding upon the said company at the time of the said loss, or at any time since the first assessment became due and owing. Also denies that it was indebted to the said plaintiff in the sum claimed or any other amount.

The plaintiff, for reply, admits the assessments and the amounts thereof, and the non-payments thereof, but said the same had been waived by the defendant company. The case was tried to the court, judgment for plaintiff, to re-; verse which this action is presented to this court.

On the trial of the cause the court stated the reasons for the judgment in its findings, viz.: “This cause came on for trial before the court upon the pleadings and'evidence and was submitted on consideration. The court finds said policy should not be reformed; the court further finds that plaintiff, on December 29, 1888, made the application in writing, introduced in evidence, to defendant for insur[575] anee of his granary, barn, and grain therein, described in petition, among other property in said application described, giving therefor his note for $16, and premium contract for $48, and that on January 10, 1889, defendant issued to plaintiff the.policy introduced in evidence, insuring said granary and stable at $500, and grain therein for $200, for five years from January 24, 1889; that said property was totally destroyed by fire, without any fault 4)r neglect of plaintiff, November 11, 1889, and that said property so destroyed was of the value of $700 and covered by said policy at time of said loss; that plaintiff duly notified defendant of said loss and that no part of said loss has been paid; that three assessments were made on said premium contract of $48, to wit, March, June, and September, 1889, respectively, and no part thereof was paid by plaintiff, and all were due at time of said loss; that after said loss plaintiff offered to pay the same, which defendant declined and refused to receive; that said policy provides that thirty days after date of notice of any assessment it shall lapse and cease to be in force; that last part of said application and contract of insurance provides as follows: ‘This contract may be canceled at the request of the assured by paying all assessments up to date of such request, together with $2 extra as a cancellation fee, and the surrender of membership certificate to the company. This company reserves the right to cancel this contract by giving notice of same and returning premium contract or pledge to member.’

“Court also finds that defendant never returned or offered to return to plaintiff his $16 note and premium contract of $48, or either of them, nor did said defendant cancel said policy or notify said plaintiff of any intention to do so. Court further finds defendant is entitled to a credit of $-, principal and interest on the three assessments unpaid by plaintiff.

“From last clause in sec. 3, sees. 17, 18, and 42, ch. [576]*57643, Statutes Nebraska; vol. 11, Encyclopaedia of Law, p. 342; No. 7, p. 336, No. 2 and p. 308, No. 5, and in particular cases cited in said numbers or sections, 26 Ia., 10; 59 N. Y., 521; 34 N. W. Rep., 151; 18 Id., 749; 39 Wis., 120, last part of the case, 16 Neb., and cases cited on p. 406; 15 Id., 494; 18 Id., 501, the court do find in law the defendant’s continuation to make assessments against plaintiff and*’notice to pay same, thereby recognized said policy and waived the forfeiture of the same, even if it lapsed by failure to pay said assessments, and continued it in force.

“The court further finds their retention of plaintiff’s $16 note and $48 premium contract and making three assessments thereon, and notice to pay same, in law waived any lapse of said policy, and that their failure to return to plaintiff his said note and contract and cancel said policy, and notify plaintiff of the same, renders the defendant liable in this case.

“It is therefore ordered by the court that said policy be not reformed but remain in full force as issued, and it is ■also considered and adjudged that the said plaintiff have and recover of and from said defendant $695, and his costs herein expended, taxed at $-.”

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

Farmers Union Insurance v. Wilder, 53 N.W. 587, 35 Neb. 572, 1892 Neb. LEXIS 350 (Neb. 1892).

53 N.W. 587 (Farmers Union Insurance v. Wilder) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Peterson v. Cosmopolitan Old Line Life Insurance
248 N.W. 312 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1933)
Herring v. Modesto Irr. Dist.
95 F. 705 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Northern California, 1899)
Beatty v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n
75 F. 65 (Ninth Circuit, 1896)