Merchants Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Alabama

Merchants Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co.

29 So. 2d 350, 249 Ala. 58, 1947 Ala. LEXIS 286

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedJanuary 23, 1947

Docket1 Div. 273.

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 29 So. 2d 350 (Merchants Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Merchants Nat. Bank v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 29 So. 2d 350, 249 Ala. 58, 1947 Ala. LEXIS 286 (Ala. 1947).

Pincite

Opinions

*59 PER CURIAM.

The policy in question with reference to the double indemnity benefits contains the following provisioñ, as set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals: “The provision for Double Indemnity Benefits .shall cease to be in force * * * (b) if the Insured engages in military or naval service in time of war.”

It is our opinion that the provision for double indemnity benefits did cease to be in force prior to the death of the insured, and was not then in force because he had subsequent to the issuance of the policy engaged in military service in time of war, and such service had not terminated at that time, and the double indemnity provision of the policy had not for any reason shown been restored so as to be then in force. This conclusion is supported by Olson v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W. of N. D., 48 N. D. 285, 184 N.W. 7, 15 A.L.R. 1270, a decision of the Supreme Court of North Dakota wherein the case of Myli v. American Life Ins. Co., 43 N.D. 495, 175 N.W. 631, 11 A.L.R. 1097, by the same court, is distinguished; and by many of the authorities ■cited in the note to each of these cases. The following authorities, also, support this view: Field v. Western Life Indemnity Co., Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 530, writ of err. ref. 240 S.W. XVII; Huntington v. Fraternal Reserve Ass’n v. Oshkosh, 173 Wis. 582, 181 N.W. 819; State Mutual Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 72 Ga.App. 117, 33 S.E.2d 105; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McLeod, 70 Ga.App. 181, 27 S.E.2d 871; Lindsey v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 70 Ga.App. 190, 27 S.E.2d 877; Bending v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 74 Ohio App. 182, 58 N.E.2d 71; Sandsted v. American Cent. Life Assurance Co., 109 Wash. 338, 186 P. 1069.

Concluding, therefore, that the reasoning of these cases, resting upon status rather than activity, represents the sounder view, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and a judgment is here rendered affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Reversed and rendered.

GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN, FOSTER, LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur. LIVINGSTON and SIMPSON, JJ., dissent.

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

*59 PER CURIAM.

The policy in question with reference to the double indemnity benefits contains the following provisioñ, as set out in the opinion of the Court of Appeals: “The provision for Double Indemnity Benefits .shall cease to be in force * * * (b) if the Insured engages in military or naval service in time of war.”

It is our opinion that the provision for double indemnity benefits did cease to be in force prior to the death of the insured, and was not then in force because he had subsequent to the issuance of the policy engaged in military service in time of war, and such service had not terminated at that time, and the double indemnity provision of the policy had not for any reason shown been restored so as to be then in force. This conclusion is supported by Olson v. Grand Lodge, A. O. U. W. of N. D., 48 N. D. 285, 184 N.W. 7, 15 A.L.R. 1270, a decision of the Supreme Court of North Dakota wherein the case of Myli v. American Life Ins. Co., 43 N.D. 495, 175 N.W. 631, 11 A.L.R. 1097, by the same court, is distinguished; and by many of the authorities ■cited in the note to each of these cases. The following authorities, also, support this view: Field v. Western Life Indemnity Co., Tex.Civ.App., 227 S.W. 530, writ of err. ref. 240 S.W. XVII; Huntington v. Fraternal Reserve Ass’n v. Oshkosh, 173 Wis. 582, 181 N.W. 819; State Mutual Ins. Co. v. Harmon, 72 Ga.App. 117, 33 S.E.2d 105; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. McLeod, 70 Ga.App. 181, 27 S.E.2d 871; Lindsey v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 70 Ga.App. 190, 27 S.E.2d 877; Bending v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 74 Ohio App. 182, 58 N.E.2d 71; Sandsted v. American Cent. Life Assurance Co., 109 Wash. 338, 186 P. 1069.

Concluding, therefore, that the reasoning of these cases, resting upon status rather than activity, represents the sounder view, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and a judgment is here rendered affirming the judgment of the trial court.

Reversed and rendered.

GARDNER, C. J., and BROWN, FOSTER, LAWSON and STAKELY, JJ., concur. LIVINGSTON and SIMPSON, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 So. 2d 350, 249 Ala. 58, 1947 Ala. LEXIS 286, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merchants-nat-bank-v-commonwealth-life-ins-co-ala-1947.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack