Home Beneficial Ass'n v. McClain

95 S.W.2d 53, 20 Tenn. App. 24, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4
CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedDecember 21, 1935
StatusPublished

This text of 95 S.W.2d 53 (Home Beneficial Ass'n v. McClain) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Home Beneficial Ass'n v. McClain, 95 S.W.2d 53, 20 Tenn. App. 24, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1935).

Opinion

CROWNOVER, J.

This is a suit, by the beneficiary, to recover on a life insurance policy.

The case originated before a justice of the peace, where judgment was rendered for the plaintiff and against the defendant for the amount of the policy, $185, and costs.

On appeal to the circuit court the case was heard by the judge without a jury.

Defendant insurance company filed a plea of tender and paid into court $77.50, contending that insured had incorrectly stated his age and that he had contracted tuberculosis within twelve months after the date of the policy, both of which facts reduced the amount of the recovery, according to the terms of the policy.

Tender was refused by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Lizzie McClain, insisting that the plea of tender, by its terms, admitted the issuance of the policy, the death of the insured, the fact that the premiums were paid up, that proper proofs were filed with the company following the death of the insured, and all necessary requisites to the plaintiff’s prima facie case, introduced no evidence.

The defendant introduced one witness, the agent of the insurance company, who testified to facts showing the issuance of the policy dated June 30, 1930, death of the insured on October 31, 1934, and that proofs of death were filed by the beneficiary. He filed as exhibits to his testimony the policy issued to Green McClain; copy of death certificate signed by J. W. Milam, attending physician, properly certified by the state registrar; statement of Dr. Milam, attending physician; and statement signed by Lizzie McClain, wife of Green McClain, deceased, and beneficiary under this policy.

The death certificate, properly certified by the state registrar, shows that the original certificate was made out by J. W. Milam, M. D., and states that the deceased was 57 years of age at his death, and *26 that the principal cause of his death was pulmonary tuberculosis and .the contributing cause was cholera morbus.

In the proofs of loss filed by the benéficiary with the insurance company she answers the question as to his age, “D. K.,” which may mean “don’t know”- — anyway these letters could not intelligently represent his age. The doctor’s certificate was filled out by Dr. Milam, and he there states that the deceased was 57 years of age at his death.

The policy, dated Juné 30, 1930, gives the age of Green McClain as 50 years. It contains the provisions relied on by defendant as to misstatement of age and reduction of amount of policy if insured should die from tuberculosis, etc., which had its inception within 12 months of the date of the policy, which paragraphs of the policy are as follows:

“The amount payable hereunder will be reduced to one-half of the sum otherwise due (1) if the Insured dies from any pulmonary disease ... or tuberculosis in any form, having its inception within twelve months from the date hereof.”

“Misstatement of Age: If the age of the Insured is not correctly stated herein, no greater amount will be paid than the premium hereon would have purchased at the true age of entry. ’ ’

The trial judge found in favor of the plaintiff and rendered judgment in her favor for the amount of the policy, $185, and costs.

Motion for a new trial having been overruled, defendant insurance company appealed in error to this court and has assigned as error that there is no evidence to support the judgment of the court.

1. The plaintiff contends that the policy is incontestable under section 6179, subsec. 3, of the Code of 1932, which provides that any. policy of life insurance issued in this state by a life insurance company organized under the laws of this state shall be incontestable after two years from its date, except for nonpayment of premiums and except for yiolations of the conditions of the policy relating to naval and military services in time of war, and section 6183 which provides that foreign policies issued in this state shall contain the same provision. Shannon’s Code, sec. 3348a8, subd. 3, and sec. 3348al2.

The section of the Code of 1932 excepting certain insurance policies from the foregoing provisions is as follows:

“The five sections above shall not apply to annuities, industrial accident and/or health insurance policies, or to corporations or associations operating on the assessment or fraternal plan.” Section 6184.

But this policy was issued' June 30, 1930, before the Code of 1932. Shannon’s Code, section 3348al3, is as follows:

“Sections 3348a8 to 3348al4 shall not apply to annuities, industrial *27 policies, or to corporations or associations operating- on the assessment or fraternal plan.”

This section of Shannon’s Code expressly excluded industrial policies, at the time of the issuance of the policy sued on; hence the provision against contestability after two years (Code 1932, sec-6179, subsee. 3, and section 6184; Shannon’s Code, sec. 3348a8, subd. 3) cannot apply to this ease.

2. The defendant insurance company contends: (1) The insured incorrectly stated his age when he made application for the policy, as the death certificate and the statement of the attending physician show that he was 57 years of age at his death, whereas his application for the policy, made three years before, gives his age as 50 years; that the amount of premium paid by him would have paid for a policy of $155, based on the age of 54 years. (2) He died of tuberculosis contracted within 12 months after the date of the policy, as shown by the death certificate, therefore his beneficiary was entitled to recover only one-half of the amount of the policy, or $77.50.

The plaintiff introduced no evidence, and the only evidence of the defendant insurance company is the policy and the proofs of death.

The policy contains a paragraph on “Proofs of Death,” which is as follows:

‘ “Proofs of death shall be made upon blanks to be furnished by the Association and shall contain the answer to each question propounded to the claimant, physicians, and other persons, and shall contain the record, evidence, and verdict of the coroner’s inquest, if any be held. All the contents of such proofs of death shall be evidence of the facts therein stated in behalf of, but not against, the Association.”

Such a stipulation is valid.

“A condition in a policy that proofs of death shall be evidence of the facts therein stated in behalf of, but not against, the company, is valid. While proofs of death are prima facie evidence' of the facts stated therein as against the beneficiary or claimant under the policy and in favor of the company, and, when not explained or rebutted, are binding and conclusive on the beneficiary or claimant, yet they may be contradicted, explained, or rebutted, as by evidence they were made by mistake or under a misapprehension, or by other evidence tending to impair their force and effect, the beneficiary or claimant not being estopped to introduce such evidence, and when evidence tending to explain or contradict them has been introduced, they are not conclusive or absolutely binding on the beneficiary or claimant.

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

Related

Life & Casualty Insurance v. Robertson
6 Tenn. App. 43 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1927)
Woods v. Sovereign Camp of Woodmen of the World
186 A.D. 59 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Schmitt v. National Life Ass'n
32 N.Y.S. 513 (New York Supreme Court, 1895)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
95 S.W.2d 53, 20 Tenn. App. 24, 1935 Tenn. App. LEXIS 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-beneficial-assn-v-mcclain-tennctapp-1935.