Home/Court of Appeals of Kentucky/Forman v. Mutual Life Insurance

Forman v. Mutual Life Insurance

191 S.W. 279, 173 Ky. 547, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 482
CourtCourt of Appeals of Kentucky
DecidedJanuary 30, 1917
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 191 S.W. 279 (Forman v. Mutual Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Kentucky primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Forman v. Mutual Life Insurance, 191 S.W. 279, 173 Ky. 547, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 482 (Ky. Ct. App. 1917).

Opinion

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Carroll

Reversing.

On April 16, 1892, the Mutual Life Insurance Co., by its policy of that date, insured the life of the appellant, T. T. Forman, for two thousand dollars, the policy being payable to his wife.

The policy contained this clause: “This policy is issued on the twenty-year distribution plan. It will be credited with its distributive share of surplus apportioned at the expiration of twenty years from date of issue. Only twenty-year distribution policies in force at the end of such term, and entitled thereto by year of issue shall share in such distribution of the surplus; and no other distribution to such policies shall be made at any previous time. All surplus so apportioned may be applied at the end of such period to purchase an annuity or may then be drawn in cash.” ....

[549]*549Forman kept the policy in force until April 16, 1912, twenty years after the date of its issual, at which time he was notified that the surplus dividend on his policy' was $518.28, and that he could either draw this amount in cash or could select any one of the several other equivalent options provided in the policy. Forman elected to receive the surplus dividend in cash and accordingly the sum of $518.28 was paid to him, with the stipulation that it should not prejudice his right to recover from the company the difference between the amount received and $996.08, the amount he claimed. The company declining to pay the amount claimed by Forman as cash surplus, viz.: $996.08, he brought this suit to recover the difference between $518.28 and $996.08, and the lower court having .dismissed his petition, he prosecutes this appeal.

Forman insists that he is entitled to the difference between the amount paid and the amount claimed, upon the ground that the company, at the time the policy was delivered to and accepted by him, guaranteed that the surplus dividend at the expiration of twenty years would be $996.08, and upon the further ground that, on a fair accounting of the surplus to which his policy was entitled, he would receive the sum claimed by him.

As we have reached the conclusion that Forman i.o entitled to the relief sought, upon the ground that the company guaranteed as a part of the contract of insurance that it would pay to him as surplus earned by his policy at the end of twenty years, $996.08, we do not find it necessary to enter into a consideration of the question whether a fair accounting would show him entitled to $996.08 or any larger sum than the company paid.

Forman in his deposition says that Dr. H. D. Rod-man, who was then an agent for the company, solicited him to take out a policy in the company, and as an evidence'of the inviting qualities of the policy, submitted to him an “illustration.” This “illustration” consisted of two pages; on one was some illustrated matter and the signature in writing of F. Schroider, Assistant Secretary, attested by the seal of the company, and on the other was the following printed and written matter:

[550]

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

Related

SEG Employees Credit Union v. Scott
554 S.W.2d 402 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1977)
Continental Cas. Co. v. Johnson
234 S.W.2d 190 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1950)
Pratt v. Mutual Life Insurance
145 P.2d 113 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1944)
Automobile Underwriters, Inc. v. Camp
27 N.E.2d 370 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1940)
Merion v. Kentucky Home Mut. Life Ins. Co.
140 S.W.2d 1067 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1940)
Legare v. West Coast Life Insurance
5 P.2d 682 (California Court of Appeal, 1931)
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Connelly
271 S.W. 673 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1925)
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Street
265 S.W. 397 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1924)
Mutual Life Insurance v. Brock
262 S.W. 4 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1924)
Gillespie v. Security Mutual Life Insurance
18 Ohio App. 164 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1924)
Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Stubbs
234 S.W. 1099 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1921)
Maddox v. Mutual Life Insurance
234 S.W. 949 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1921)
Thomas v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
205 S.W. 533 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1918)
Kaley v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance
166 N.W. 256 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
191 S.W. 279, 173 Ky. 547, 1917 Ky. LEXIS 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forman-v-mutual-life-insurance-kyctapp-1917.