Prudential Insurance v. Chestnut

72 S.E. 170, 9 Ga. App. 781, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 327
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 30, 1911
Docket3043
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 72 S.E. 170 (Prudential Insurance v. Chestnut) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Prudential Insurance v. Chestnut, 72 S.E. 170, 9 Ga. App. 781, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 327 (Ga. Ct. App. 1911).

Opinion

Russell, J.

The case has been to the court previously; and, as many of the facts are stated in the opinion then delivered (8 Ga. App. 246), they will not be repeated here, but this opinion should be read in connection with the former opinion. On that hearing (which was upon demurrer) it appeared that the quarterly premium due December 21, 1908, had been paid. On the evidence coming-in, it appeared that the last quarterly premium paid was the one due September 21, 1908. The further facts necessary to an understanding of the case here presented may be summarized as follows: The policy was dated June 21, 1906; the premiums were payable quarterly on the 21st of June, September, December, and March. They were paid up to and including September 21, 1908. The insured died July 8, 1909. The provisions as to extended insurance in the event of a lapse of the policy for non-payment of premiums are as follows: If the policy has been in force for one full year, an extension of sixty days from the lapse; if for two full years, 120 days from the lapse; if for three full years, one year [782]*782and 177 days from date of last payment of premium. It is also stated that if the preñiiiims are paid, in quarterly instalments, “due allowance” will be made for that portion of the year’s premium which has been paid. The court directed a verdict in the plaintiff’s favor.

The record contains the testimony of Mr. Samuel Barnett, an insurance actuary. His testimony so clearly shows that the policy was in force at the time of the death of the insured, and at the same time so lucidly explains the nature of such contracts as the one before us, that we deem it advantageous to the profession to set forth extracts from his testimony, in lieu of any extended discussion on our part. Among other things, Mr. Barnett testified as follows:

“I am an insurance actuary and an insurance lawyer. The duties of an actuary are to do the mathematical work of a life-insurance company, including the calculating of premiums and the reserves on policies, and everything in detail, the mathematical part and all about that part of it, and, to a large extent, the legal part of the work which bears on insurance. Practically, T have been all my life at this actuarial work. I have done this kind of work for eight or ten or more insurance companies. T have studied in Europe and made this work a life study. I am familiar with the methods of calculating reserve and expenses on insurance, and other provisions of life-insurance policies. I am familiar with the basis upon which all companies figure — not the Prudential Insurance Company specially, but all companies. There is only one way in which values under a policy can be calculated. The Prudential Insurance Company advertises itself as following the American Experience Tables of Mortality, at three per cent, interest. Now, if they do follow the American Experience Tables at three per cent., I know how they make their calculations. Three per cent, reserve means that the calculations are made upon the mortality table, and expected interest rate of three per cent.; it means a certain reserve laid aside each year at three per cent, would meet the policy when it matures.
“The component parts of a premium are, first, the mortality; second, the interest rate; and, third, the expense. The premiums accumulate the reserve; the reserve comes out of the premium. When the premium is first paid, it is made up of nothing except re-[783]*783servo and expense. Leave out tlie expense, then the uses to which a premium is put are simply to meet the mortality losses as they accrue. Now, when a premium is paid, all the net part of it is reserve at the time it is paid; you can call it reserve for mortality, for the company has got to pay the claim, and, therefore, 3'ou can say, in a certain sense, it is for mortality. The accumulated premium that the polic3r carries is all the Compaq has to pay anything with, ■ — extended insurance, or paid-up insurance, or mortality, or anything else. Premiums are paid from time to time, but it is utterly impossible, when 3-011 pay premiums, to say how much is for mortality, how much for surrender value, or how much for anything else. The object of all these premiums is to meet the conditions as they arise along in the future, whatever they may be, and the premiums should be sufficient for that purpose. The surrender values at the end of the third year do not represent the entire reserve on the policy; so far as that part of it is concerned, it is arbitrary. I am inclined to think that the 60 days extension at the end of the first 3rear is an arbitrary value; I haven’t figured it. I think the 120 days at the end of the second year is an arbitrary value.
“When the first premium was paid on this policy, that premium had to pa3’, first, an agent’s commission; the company has to pay an agent’s commission; if they don’t get it from the first premium, they have got to get it somewhere else. I don’t know as to the Prudential Insurance Company specially, but when the first premium on that policy was paid, this premium of thirty-three dollars, a certain part of that premium went first for agents’ commissions. If you ask me the general custom, I can state it. All I know is the general custom. 1 don’t know whether the Prudential paid commissions on the first 3rear’s premium; all I know is the general custom. I can only know from my general knowledge that a commission was paid on the first veár’s premium. If you ask me if I know a general practice, or if 1 know it in a general way, as a general custom, then I say 'I do know, I know it from general knowledge ; I do not know it from any special knowledge concerning the Prudential Insurance Company.
“The doctor’s medical examination fee was not taken out of the first year’s premium as such; those things have to be paid, but I don’t say they would take it out of the first year’s premium. They paid the doctor something, but I don’t say they took it out of the [784]*784first year’s premium. A certain amount lias to be paid for office expenses; if there isn’t enough to cover those things, then they have got to go outside and get it. They have a certain amount to cover those things.
“There is no such thing as theoretical reserve distinct from legal. The reserve is a liability against the company, and the company has got to put it up; the company on full legal reserve basis on usual expenses has got to borrow from some other source to put up the reserve at the end of the first year. The same thing is true at the end of the second year; if the premiums are not sufficient to put up that reserve, they have to go somewhere and get it. No company on full legal reserve on ordinary expenses, after they pay the agents’ commissions, and the medical examiners’ feus, and the home-office expenses, has anything left at the end of the first year, out of the first premium. As a rule, there can not be much reserve saved out of first premium at the end of the first year; there can be reserve saved out of the premiums at the end of the second year. At the end of the second year there may he saved, as a rule, in the neighborhood of a quarter of the premium. I can tell what actual reserve saved there would have been on this policy at the end of the second year, if you will let me know what the expenses of the company were; otherwise I would have to go into an 'elaborate calculation of the expense.

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

Related

Inter-Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Omer
38 S.W.2d 931 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1931)
Douglas v. Stephens
108 S.E. 833 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
72 S.E. 170, 9 Ga. App. 781, 1911 Ga. App. LEXIS 327, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/prudential-insurance-v-chestnut-gactapp-1911.