FIRST NAT. BANK OF ANSON CTY. v. Nationwide Ins.

278 S.E.2d 507, 303 N.C. 203, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1101
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 2, 1981
Docket70
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 278 S.E.2d 507 (FIRST NAT. BANK OF ANSON CTY. v. Nationwide Ins.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
FIRST NAT. BANK OF ANSON CTY. v. Nationwide Ins., 278 S.E.2d 507, 303 N.C. 203, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1101 (N.C. 1981).

Opinion

HUSKINS, Justice.

The only issue we need address is whether the group insurance policy was in effect as of the date of John Gatewood’s death. We have concluded that it was not in effect and the Court of Appeals erred in holding to the contrary. Because the group policy was not in effect, we do not reach the issue whether the widow or the administrator was entitled to the proceeds of the policy. We first examine the facts of the case and the relevant language in the policy and then apply the appropriate rules of law.

I.

On 30 April 1971 decedent John Gatewood was employed as a custodian by defendant Hornwood, Inc. which operates a textile plant in Anson County. Hornwood was policyholder of a group insurance policy issued to it by defendant Nationwide for the benefit of Hornwood employees. At the time he applied for the job, decedent enrolled as a certificateholder for life insurance coverage under the group policy and designated his wife, Bright M. Gatewood, as beneficiary on enrollment and register cards. The policy was effective 30 June 1971. Nationwide canceled the original group policy and issued another group insurance policy to Hornwood on 1 June 1972 which remained in effect with Horn-wood through the date of Gatewood’s death. The new policy was the same as the original except it added dependent coverage. No enrollment or beneficiary card was entered on the new policy by Gatewood. Gatewood and his employer both contributed to the payment of premiums. Gatewood’s contribution was deducted from his paycheck. Hornwood, as policyholder, forwarded the *205 premium for all its employees to Nationwide each month and also notified Nationwide each month of the names and changes in status of its employees. Hornwood handled all the paperwork related to the policy while it was in effect.

On 13 November 1973, Gatewood suffered an injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The injury was to his right wrist and so disabling that he could not lift heavy objects thereby precluding his working as a janitor. The accident rendered him totally unable to earn wages. He received worker’s compensation benefits from 14 November 1973 until his death on 9 December 1975. He continued to come to work until 30 January 1974 but did not return to work at Hornwood after that date.

Decedent’s employment with Hornwood was terminated on 7 August 1974. The reason given for the termination was an employment cutback for economic reasons. The separation notice gave “no work available” as the reason for termination.

Until Gatewood’s termination of employment in August 1974, Hornwood had continued to pay premiums for decedent’s coverage under the group insurance policy. Gatewood continued to contribute to the coverage while receiving worker’s compensation benefits. The Hornwood personnel manager testified:

During the time he was paid compensation, John Gatewood contributed toward the payment of the premium of the policy. He was supposed to pay it weekly. He brought the premium by. I don’t know of any record of premium payments made during disability. We don’t have any records concerning this that I know of.

(Testimony to the same effect by another Hornwood employee in the personnel office was subsequently excluded by the trial court.) No premiums were paid after 1 August 1974. The policy had a provision for waiver of premiums in the event of total disability. The personnel manager, whose office was responsible for preparing the monthly report to Nationwide, was aware of Gatewood’s injury and his receipt of worker’s compensation benefits. No waiver of premium claim or notice of disability claim was filed with Nationwide. In its monthly status report to Nationwide for August, Hornwood listed Gatewood as terminated rather than disabled.

*206 On 9 December 1975, Gatewood died of stab wounds. In January 1976, at the request of decedent’s administrator, Horn-wood sent Nationwide notice of Gatewood’s death and earlier disability. The administrator contended the policy was in full force and effect by operation of the clause in the policy for waiver of premium in the event the certificateholder was disabled. No claim for waiver of premium had been filed with Nationwide until this time. Nationwide refused to pay under the group policy and this suit was instituted.

II.

The insurance contract under which Gatewood’s widow and the administrator of his estate claim benefits is a group insurance policy. The portions of the policy dealing with payment or waiver of premiums, termination and conversion are the provisions important to this case and therefore the ones which we will examine in detail.

There are two documents in group insurance contracts: the policy and the certificate of insurance. The policy was issued by Nationwide (insurer) to Hornwood, Inc. (policyholder) “to insure certain employees of the policyholder and its subsidiaries.” The Certificate of Insurance, which was issued to each insured employee (certificateholder), summarizes certain provisions of the master policy. The Certificate of Insurance refers the cer-tificateholder to the “Policy, which alone constitutes the agreement under which payments are made.” We, therefore, look first to the master policy. See Smith v. Assurance Society, 205 N.C. 387, 171 S.E. 346 (1933); see generally, 1 Appleman, Insurance Law § 46.

The insurance became effective for what the policy defines as an “Eligible Person” on the latest of the following dates:

(1) the date he becomes an Eligible Person if he enrolls on or before that date;
(2) the date he enrolls, if he enrolls within 31 days after he becomes an Eligible Person;
(3) the date of approval of his application by the Company if he enrolls more than 31 days after he becomes an Eligible Person.

*207 The policy defines “Eligible Person” as “any person who (1) on the effective date of this Policy, is regularly employed by the Policyholder; or (2) subsequent to the effective date of this Policy, has been regularly employed by the Policyholder not less than 2 months.” The policy contains the following provision concerning the termination of insurance for an individual certificateholder:

A Certificateholder’s coverage under any benefit provision of the Policy terminates upon the first occurrence of the following:
(1) . . .
(2) . . .
(3) . . .
(4) his termination of membership in the classes eligible for coverage under that benefit provision, but membership in the classes eligible for coverage under any benefit provision set forth in the Schedule of Maximum Continuation Periods below will not be deemed to terminate solely because of the Certificateholder’s disability until contributions for his coverage are discontinued or until expiration of the applicable Maximum Continuation Period set forth in that Schedule, whichever is earlier.
Schedule of Maximum Continuation Periods

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

Related

Hartford Fire Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance
606 F. Supp. 2d 602 (E.D. North Carolina, 2009)
Rouse v. Williams Realty Bldg. Co., Inc.
544 S.E.2d 609 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2001)
Middleton v. Russell Group, Ltd.
483 S.E.2d 727 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1997)
Newell v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance
403 S.E.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1991)
Morehead v. Morehead
738 S.W.2d 42 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1987)
Mastrom, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.
337 S.E.2d 162 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Pittman v. First Protection Life Insurance
325 S.E.2d 287 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
Ballard v. North American Life & Casualty Co.
667 S.W.2d 79 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1983)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
278 S.E.2d 507, 303 N.C. 203, 1981 N.C. LEXIS 1101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-nat-bank-of-anson-cty-v-nationwide-ins-nc-1981.