New York Life Ins. v. Morris

102 So. 71, 137 Miss. 101, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 207
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 8, 1924
DocketNo. 24522
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 102 So. 71 (New York Life Ins. v. Morris) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Mississippi Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
New York Life Ins. v. Morris, 102 So. 71, 137 Miss. 101, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 207 (Mich. 1924).

Opinion

Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

The appellee, Isabelle K]. Morris, instituted this suit against the New York Life Insurance Company on an insurance policy issued for her benefit on the life of her husband, William E. Morris, now deceased, and from a judgment for appellee, this appeal was prosecuted.

[106]*106To the declaration filed by appellee the defendant company pleaded all the various provisions of the policy in reference to the payment of premiums, and the provision for a forfeiture for nonpayment of premiums. The cause was submitted to the court, without the intervention of a jury, on an agreed statement of facts. It was agreed that an annual premium on the policy, if it had been paid annually, would have been seventy three dollars and eig'hty-three cents, but, by written agreement between the insured and the defendant, the premium was to be paid in quarterly installments of nineteen dollars and fifty-six cents; that, by agreement of the parties, the policy took effect, on the 8th day of January, 1923, and the first quarterly installment of the premium was paid; that the quarterly installments included six per cent, interest on the amount of an annual premium; that, before the maturity of the second, or April, quarterly installment of the premium, the defendant gave the insured duo and proper notice of the date when said installment would become due and payable, but the same was not paid on its due date, or within thirty days thereafter; that likewise the July and October quarterly installments were not paid; and that the insured died on December 3, 1923.

The policy contract contains the following provision:

“This contract is made in consideration of the payment in advance of the sum of nineteen dollars and fifty-six cents, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, constituting the first premium, and maintaining this policy- to th'e 8th day of April, 1923, and of a like sum on said date and every three calendar months thereafter during the life of the insured.”

As to the gjace allowed in the payment of premiums, the provision of the policy is as follows:

“Grace.—If any premium is not paid on or before the day it falls due, the policy holder is in default; but a grace of one month (not less than thirty days), subject [107]*107to an interest charge of five per cent, per annum, will be allowed for the payment of every premium after the first, during which time the insurance continues in force If death occurs within the period of grace, the unpaid premium for the then current insurance year will be deducted from the amount payable hereunder.”

As to the payment of premiums and the effect of nonpayment the provision of the policy is as follows: -

“Payment of Premiums.—All premiums are payable on or before their due date, at the home office of the company or to an authorized ag’ent of the company, but only in exchange for the company’s official premium receipt signed by the president, a vice president, a second vice president, a secretary, or the treasurer of the company, and countersigned by the person receiving the premium. No person has any authority to collect a premium, unless he then holds said official premium receipt. The premium is always considered as payable annually in advance, but, by agreement in writing and not otherwise, may be made payable in semiannual or quarterly payments. Any unpaid premiums required to complete payment for the current insurance year in which death occurs shall be deducted from the amount payable hereunder. The payment of the premium shall not maintain the policy in force beyond the date when the next payment becomes due, except as to the benefits provided for herein, after default in premium payment. ’ ’

The court below held, and. the contention of the appellee is, that the contract of insurance is a contract for annual insurance, and, since the policy provides that any unpaid premiums required to complete payment for the current insurance year in which death occurs shall be deducted from the amount payable thereunder, the payment of the first quarterly installment effected insurance for one year, and upon the death of the insured during the year, the company became liable for [108]*108the face of the policy, less the unpaid premium installments for the year.

We think this is a misconception resulting from a failure to construe together, and give effect to, all the provisions o'f the policy. The policy provides that the first quarterly installment shall constitute the first premium, and shall maintain the policy in force for three calendar months, at the end of which time a second installment shall become due, and that the payment of the premium shall not maintain the policy in force beyond the date when the next payment shall become due, except as to the benefits provided for therein, after default in premium payment, and if the contention of the appellee is sustained, it will result in nullifying these provisions, except as to the initial yearly payments. The provision for a forfeiture on the date when a premium shall become due is absolute, except as to the benefits provided for after default in the payment of the premium. A benefit after default in a premium payment is found in the provision that a grace of one month will be allowed for the payment of any premium, during which time the insurance will be continued in force, and the unpaid premium for balance of the insurance year deducted from the face of the policy.

Construing these provisions together a forfeiture cannot occur until the period of grace allowed for the payment of a premium has expired, but, if death occurs during this period,' it is expressly provided that the company may collect the premium for the current insurance year by deducting it from the amount payable under the policy. When this last provision is considered in connection with the general provision that any unpaid premiums, required to complete payment for the current insurance year in which death occurs, shall be deducted from the amount payable thereunder, it seems clear that the right to deduct from the face of the policy the installments not due attaches only when the insured [109]*109regularly meets Ms payments' at maturity, or within the period of grace, and dies before all the .payments for the current year become due. We think that, for the purpose of this decision, it may be conceded that the policy is an annual insurance, but the payments are to be made quarterly, and it is expressly provided that the failure to make any payment when due will work a forfeiture. The insurance was not for one year absolutely, but for that period only on the condition that the insured paid the premiums when due under the terms of the policy. By the contract of insurance the insurer granted the insured the privilege of paying the annual premium in quarterly installments, but reserved the right to collect a full yearly premium in the event of-the death of the insured while the policy was in force. In case, however, of a voluntary default in the payment of any installment, when due, or within the grace period, it is expressly provided that the policy shall no longer be an existing contract, and in such case the insurer has no right to collect the remaining installments, and no action can be maintained thereon by the beneficiary.

In the case of New York Life Insurance Co. v. Alexander, 122 Miss. 813, 85 So. 93, 15 A. L. R. 314, it was held that:

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

Related

American Life Ins. v. Hauer
67 So. 2d 523 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1953)
Lamb v. Aetna Life Ins. Co. of Hartford
136 S.W.2d 1048 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1940)
Ponder v. Lamar Life Ins.
6 F.2d 294 (W.D. Louisiana, 1925)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
102 So. 71, 137 Miss. 101, 1924 Miss. LEXIS 207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-life-ins-v-morris-miss-1924.