Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fiquett

155 So. 702, 229 Ala. 203, 1934 Ala. LEXIS 276
CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
DecidedMay 17, 1934
Docket5 Div. 170.
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 155 So. 702 (Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fiquett) 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
Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fiquett, 155 So. 702, 229 Ala. 203, 1934 Ala. LEXIS 276 (Ala. 1934).

Opinions

BROWN, Justice.

This is an action of assumpsit by the beneficiary named in an “ordinary life policy, annual dividend,'” issued by the defendant tp William Fiquett, on the 18th of September, 1916, in consideration of a premium of $57.90 paid on the date of the issuance of the policy, and an agreement to pay a like sum on each anniversary of the policy.

The evidence is without dispute that the annual premiums were paid on the policy up to and including the premium due September 18, 1926, but the insured failed to pay the premium due September 18, 1927. On the date of the default in payment of the last-mentioned premium, there was an indebtedness of $26S.S4 due from the insured to the insurer, advanced as a loan under the loan clause of the policy.

The policy had a cash surrender value, as of said last-mentioned date, of $365.34, and had accredited to it a dividend of $17.54, making the total cash value of the policy $382.88.

The policy contained the following stipulations:

“VI. Loans. After three full years’ premiums have been paid, the Company, at anytime while this policy is in force, will advance, on proper assignment and delivery of this policy and on the sole security thereof, and in accordance with Sections VIII and IX hereof, a sum which, with interest thereon to the end of the current policy-year, shall be equal to, or at the option of the owner less than, the cash value at the end of the said year, which cash value shall be the full reserve on this policy and on any dividend additions thereto according to the American Experience Table of Mortality with interest at 3 per cent. The amount of such advance shall be reduced by any existing indebtedness on this policy and any unpaid balance of the current policy-year’s premium. Interest on the advance will be at the rate of 6 per cent, per annum and shall be payable at the end of each policy-year, and this interest, if not paid when due, shall be added to the existing indebtedness, provided the total indebtedness would not then exceed the cash value, and the indebtedness thus created shall bear interest at the same rate. The indebtedness or any part thereof may be repaid ,to the Company at any time. Failure to repay any such advance or to pay interest thereon shall not void this Policy unless the total indebtedness hereon with interest shall equal or exceed the cash value at the time of such failure, in which case there shall be no liability under this Policy; provided, however that no such termination shall he effective until one month after notice shall have heen mailed hy the Company to the last-known address of the insured and of the assignee, if any, of record at the Some Office of the Company. All indebtedness on account of this Policy, with ac *205 crued interest, shall he deducted from any settlement hereunder. [Italics supplied.]
“VII. Non-Forfeiture. If this Policy shall lapse through non-payment of premium after three years’ premiums have been paid, the Company will secure to the owner thereof a form of insurance, the net value of which shall be equal to the full reserve on this Policy and on any dividend additions thereto at the date of default, according to the American Experience Table of Mortality, with interest at 3 per cent., less any existing indebtedness to the Company on this Policy. At the end of the third and succeeding years the cash value is the full reserve, and the paid-up and extension values are the equivalents thereof. The .stipulated values of this Policy shall be correspondingly increased for any fractional portion of a year’s premium which has been paid. This nonforfeiture value shall be secured to the owner of this Policy through one of the following provisions:
“First: — The automatic extension without participation of the net amount insured by this Policy for the number of years and days stated below, at the expiration of which time the insurance shall cease; or,
“Second: — The issue of paid-up participating insurance payable at death for the sum provided for below upon written application therefor by the owner of this Policy and the legal surrender of all claims hereunder to the Company at its Home Office within one month after lapse; or,
“Third: — The payment, in accordance with Sections VIII and IX hereof, of the cash surrender value provided for below on surrender of this Policy and all claims hereunder to the Company within one month from the date, of lapse. * * *
“Should any indebtedness exist, it shall be deducted from the cash value of this Policy; the amount of the paid-up insurance shall be reduced in the same proportion as the cash value is reduced; or in case of lapse the extended insurance shall be for the face of this Policy less the indebtedness and for such a term as said reduced cash value will provide.
“The cash value of any paid-up or extension granted upon the lapse of this Policy will be the full reserve at the time of surrender, less any indebtedness to the Company under this Policy, and will be paid to the owner thereof upon proper release.”

The insured did not make written application for “paid-up insurance” under option “Second,” nor for payment of the cash surrender value as provided in option “Third.” The insurer, however, credited the cash value of the policy with the indebtedness, leaving a balance of $114.84 to be applied under option “First” to extended insurance.

If, under 'the facts of this case, the stipulations of paragraphs VII and IX are applicable, the effect of these provisions, in the absence of efficacious exercising of one of the other options, was to automatically extend the insurance for a’ term of five years and twenty-six days, up to and including October 14, 1932. The insured died on April 28, 1933.

Appellant’s contention is that under the facts of this case, as shown by the undisputed evidence, the policy lapsed on September 18, 1927, because of the failure of the insured to pay the annual premium then due, and in the absence of an election by the insured to exercise one of the other options, the stipulations contained in the first option automatically extended the insurance for the term of five years and twenty-six days, at the expiration of which the insurance under the policy ceased.

The appellee, on the other hand, contends that under the terms of the contract expressed in paragraph VI, governing loans, that paragraph having been put in operation by the loan obtained thereunder by the insured, the insurance could not be terminated “until one month after notice shall have been mailed by the company,” as provided for in the italicized proviso -of paragraph VI, citing in support of this contention, Protective Life Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 223 Ala. 106, 134 So. 488.

The cited case involved a paid-up policy, and the controlling question presented in that case was whether or not the insurer could successfully claim a forfeiture of the insurance without strict compliance with the loan agreement under which it claimed such forfeiture. The question of the lapse of the policy for nonpayment of premiums was not there involved.

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

Related

Green v. Russell County
603 F.2d 571 (Fifth Circuit, 1979)
Orrox Corporation v. Rexnord, Inc.
389 F. Supp. 441 (M.D. Alabama, 1975)
Land Title Co. of Alabama v. State Ex Rel. Porter
299 So. 2d 289 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1974)
Travelers Insurance Company v. Kernachan
214 So. 2d 447 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1968)
Scherf v. Renfroe
93 So. 2d 402 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1957)
City of Birmingham v. Wood
10 So. 2d 666 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1942)
Equitable Life Assur. Soc. v. Brandt
198 So. 595 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1940)
G. F. A. Peanut Ass'n v. W. F. Covington Planter Co.
192 So. 502 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1939)
The Praetorians v. Hicks
175 So. 258 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1937)
Rick v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
93 S.W.2d 1126 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1936)
Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Miller
164 So. 742 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)
Columbus Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hines
196 N.E. 158 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1935)
Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co. v. Carter
159 So. 217 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
155 So. 702, 229 Ala. 203, 1934 Ala. LEXIS 276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/penn-mut-life-ins-co-v-fiquett-ala-1934.