Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Young

Court of Appeals of Texas

Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Young

135 S.W.2d 1040

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedDecember 15, 1939

DocketNo. 1959.

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 135 S.W.2d 1040 (Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Young) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Young, 135 S.W.2d 1040 (Tex. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

This is a suit by Hattye Maurine Young,, widow of S. A. Young, deceased, on a policy of life insurance in the face amount of $1500 issued by the Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Company as a joint policy on the lives of Mr. and Mrs. Young.

In her original petition, filed January 12, 1937, the plaintiff alleged the issuance, execution and delivery to herself and husband of the policy sued upon; that her husband, S. A. Young, died an accidental death January 12, 1935, a few days short of one year after the issuance of the policy. She further alleged that at the time of her husband’s death all premiums had been fully paid and that the policy was in force- and effect.

Recovery was sought for the face amount of the policy and for an additional sum of $1500 provided therein as double indemnity in the case of death resulting from accidental injury. On the double indemnity feature she alleged that her husband fell from the mezzanine to ths lobby floor in the Burch Hotel in Breckenridge sustaining a skull fracture and other injuries from, which he died the following day.

Among other defenses, the defendant answered that the policy by its terms had. lapsed on account of the non payment of the monthly premium falling due November 16, 1934. That said premium was not paid, on its due date, nor within the following 30 days grace period.

By supplemental petition plaintiff denied, that the policy had lapsed.

In the alternative, the plaintiff pleaded matters of waiver and estoppel, issues on which were not submitted to the jury. In answer to the sole issue submitted, the-jury found that said November premium, was paid. A judgment was entered there *1041 on in favor of the'plaintiff for the sum of $3,000, (the same embracing the double indemnity coverage), with interest, etc. This judgment is challenged by assignments of error to the effect that the evidence showed “conclusively that the November 16 premium was not paid and that the policy in question had lapsed by its own provisions.” And further, that the overwhelming testimony negatived the payment of said premium.

In presenting this appeal the appellant (defendant) has gone upon the theory that “the non-payment of premium is a defensive issue, the burden of proof on which is cast upon the defendant.” Without passing on that question we shall assume the proposition to be correct and proceed to consider the questions raised by viewing the testimony and all reasonable intendments arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee.

The policy was dated January 16, 1934. The premiums were payable on the 16th of each month. The evidence, documentary and otherwise, bearing in particular upon the question under consideration, is substantially reflected by the following schedule:

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