Melvin Ex Rel. Melvin v. Piedmont Mutual Life Insurance

64 S.E. 180, 150 N.C. 398, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 63
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedApril 7, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 64 S.E. 180 (Melvin Ex Rel. Melvin v. Piedmont Mutual Life Insurance) 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
Melvin Ex Rel. Melvin v. Piedmont Mutual Life Insurance, 64 S.E. 180, 150 N.C. 398, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 63 (N.C. 1909).

Opinion

*399 Hoke, J.

The policy declared on contains a stipulation, made a part of the contract of insurance, in terms as follows:

“5. Whenever the insured shall fail to pay the weekly premium on this policy for five weeks, and shall be due five weeks’ premium, all claims on the company are by such arrears forfeited ; but the insured may be reinstated by paying up all back dues, and shall be entitled to full benefits sixty days from date of paying such dues, provided the insured shall be in good health when such dues are paid and for five weeks thereafter.”

'There was evidence showing that on 18 January, 1908, the deceased was indebted for six weeks’ unpaid weekly dues and premiums, and on that day he paid four weeks of such arrears, which was received by the agent and by him turned over to the superintendent, who entered the same on the company’s books to the credit of the insured, and on 20 January, 1908, the insured died.

The court below was of opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to have the issue of defendant’s liability submitted on the question of waiver, by reason of the payment of the four weeks’ back dues and the receipt of same by the company, but we do not think this is a correct view of the case on the facts presented. By the terms of the contract, “On a failure to pay the weekly premiums for five weeks, all claims on the company are by such arrears forfeited,” and, at the time the payment on these six weeks of back dues was made, the rights of the insured, under his policy, had ceased. Freckman v. Royal Arcanum, 96 Wis., 133; Supreme Lodge v. Keener, 6 Tex. Civ. App., 267; Carlson v. Supreme Council, 115 Cal., 466. While provision for reinstatement is contained in the policy, the stipulation is that such reinstatement shall occur on the payment of “all back dues”; and the authorities are very generally to the effect that, under such a stipulation, a partial payment of back dues will not work a reinstatement. Insurance Co. v. Willet, 24 Mich., 268; Hudson v. Insurance Co., 28 N. J. Eq., 167; Supreme Lodge v. Œters, 95 Va., 610. Certainly no such result could be allowed unless there was evidence of some understanding or authorized agreement to that effect. Apart from this, by the express provisions of the contract, a reinstatement is only to *400 occur after sixty days from paying tlie back dues and on condition tbat tbe insured shall be in good health when such dues are paid and for five weelcs thereafter. He died in two days after the partial payment was made.

We are of opinion that the defendant’s motion for nonsuit should have been allowed, and it is so ordered.

Reversed.

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

Related

Allen v. National Accident & Health Insurance
1 S.E.2d 94 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
Knight v. Pilot Life Insurance
189 S.E. 121 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Waller
167 So. 563 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1936)
Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Lambert
153 So. 627 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1934)
Nelson v. Mutual Life Insurance
190 P. 927 (Montana Supreme Court, 1920)
Clifton v. Mutual Life Insurance
84 S.E. 817 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1915)
Page v. Junior Order U. A. M.
69 S.E. 414 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1910)
Wilkie v. National Council United American Mechanics
66 S.E. 579 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1909)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
64 S.E. 180, 150 N.C. 398, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/melvin-ex-rel-melvin-v-piedmont-mutual-life-insurance-nc-1909.