Rustin v. Ætna Life Insurance

153 N.W. 548, 98 Neb. 426, 1915 Neb. LEXIS 251
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJune 5, 1915
DocketNo. 18004
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 153 N.W. 548 (Rustin v. Ætna Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rustin v. Ætna Life Insurance, 153 N.W. 548, 98 Neb. 426, 1915 Neb. LEXIS 251 (Neb. 1915).

Opinion

Letton, J.

From a judgment of tbe district court in favor of the plaintiff on a policy of life insurance issued on the life of her husband, Frederick Rustin, defendant appeals. At the close of the trial in the district court, there being practically no disputed questions of fact, each party moved for a directed verdict. The' motion of defendant was over[427]*427ruled, and that of plaintiff sustained, and judgment rendered accordingly.

The sole question involved in this appeal is the amount of defendant’s liability under the policy of insurance, which, with a loan agreement secured thereby, constituted the entire contractual relations between the parties. The policy was issued November 23, 1903, for $10,000, in consideration of an annual premium of $294.40, payable annually in advance. The principal sum is made payable '“on the surrender and discharge of this policy either at the end of the policy year falling nearest to age eighty-five, if the insured is then living, or, on receipt and approval of proofs of the death of the said insured during the continuance of this policy, and any indebtedness to said company on account of this policy or any premium for the current year remaining unpaid shall first be deducted therefrom.” It is further provided: “This policy is issued and accepted subject to the conditions, provisions, and benefits printed on the reverse of this page, which are hereby referred to and made a part hereof.” One of these is: “If any subsequent premium be not paid when due then this policy shall cease and determine subject to the nonforfeiting features hereinafter described.” A grace of 30 days for the payment of premium is also allowed. Rustin paid three annual premiums, but made default in the payment of the fourth annual premium, which was due on November 23, 1906. He died September 2, 1908, within the period for which he was entitled to extended insurance under the nonforfeiture provisions of the policy hereinafter considered. On July 9, 1906, and before default in the payment of the premium, Rustin borrowed from the defendant the sum of $210, payable on demand, and executed a loan contract therefor, signed by himself and Mrs. Rustin. In this contract they acknowledged the amount of the note, with interest, “to be an indebtedness to said Ætna Life Insurance Company, on account of contract No. 60269, issued by said company on the life of Frederick Rustin, which contract, with all right, title and interest therein, and all benefit and advantage [428]*428to be derived therefrom, is hereby assigned to said company as security for this indebtedness.” It was also provided therein that if the note or any interest thereon “remains unpaid thirty days after it becomes due the right to pay further premiums under said contract shall -cease.” Other provisions with respect to the rights of the parties after default of the payment of the note or the interest are contained therein; but we consider that they are not material in this controversy, since no demand had been made and no default had occurred in the obligation of this contract at the time that Rustin defaulted in the payment of the fourth annual premium on the policy. The rights of the parties as to extended insurance and the amount thereof must be determined, therefore, by the conditions of the policy' contract alone.

The controversy is not as to the length of the period of extended insurance, but it is as to the amount of insurance to which Rustin was entitled during the period of extension. Plaintiff claims, and the district court held, that the full amount of $10,000, less the indebtedness of $210, with interest, as provided in the loan contract mentioned, is due, while defendant asserts that under the provisions of the policy the amount of extended insurance to which the policy holder is entitled is $1,856.

The provisions in the policy which are decisive of the issues are as follows:

“Extension of Pull Sum Insured.
“Section 4. If default occurs in. the payment of any premium under this policy after the premiums have been paid for three years or more, this policy shall then cease as to the right to pay further premiums, but shall, if there is no indebtedness to said company against it, be extended aS temporary life insurance for the full sum hereby insured during the time specified in the following table, reckoned from the time when the first unpaid premium became due, at the expiration of which time it shall wholly cease and be void, except for, the endowment value, if any, shown by the next column of said table payable only at the expi[429]*429ration of the endowment- term if the insured is then living. Should the death of the insured occur within three years after the time when the first unpaid premium fell due and while this policy is in force as temporary life insurance, there shall he deducted from the amount otherwise due from said company the premiums that would have been paid had there been no default in the payment of premium, with interest thereon.
“Paid-up Policy. Cash Surrender Value.
“In lieu of such extended insurance a paid-up nonparticipating stock policy will be issued for the amount shown by the following table, or, at the expiration of the fifth or of any subsequent policy year, said company will pay the amount of cash shown by the following table; provided in either case that this policy be surrendered to said company and a written application made for said paid-up policy or cash value within three months after the time when the first unpaid premium became due. Said paid-up policy shall bear the date of its issue and be due and payable in event of death as herein provided, or at the expiration of as many years from its date as there are years of this endowment term less the number of full years expired under this policy.
“Loan.
“Section 5. After the expiration of three years from the date of this policy, and before default in the payment of premium, said company will loan upon the same the amount shown by the following table.”
“The figures given in this table are for one thousand dollars of insurance, and the values for insurance of a greater or less amount can be calculated therefrom. The table is based on the assumption that there is no indebtedness against the policy and that all the premiums have been paid to the end of the policy year for which the value is given.
[430]*430“Directions Concerning the Use of the Table.
“If there is any indebtedness to the company against the policy, the loan or the cash surrender value will be reduced by the amount of said indebtedness, and the amount which shall.be extended as temporary life insurance (also the endowment value, if any) or the amount of paid-up policy to be issued will be reduced in the proportion which said indebtedness bears to the cash surrender value hereof.
“For a loan or cash surrender value the policy must be unincumbered by the interest of minor children and a valid loan note or surrender papers must first be executed under such regulations as are prescribed by the company.
“In determining the extension, the paid-up policy, the cash or loan value, premiums paid for entire years only will be considered.”

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

Related

Ford v. Mut. L. Ins. Co. of N.Y.
13 So. 2d 45 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1943)
Steuernagel v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
185 A. 208 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Jansen v. Tyler
49 P.2d 372 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1935)
Metcalf v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
37 P.2d 115 (California Court of Appeal, 1934)
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Lillard
1926 OK 51 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1926)
Dressler v. Commonwealth Life Insurance
181 N.W. 543 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 1921)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
153 N.W. 548, 98 Neb. 426, 1915 Neb. LEXIS 251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rustin-v-tna-life-insurance-neb-1915.