Spratling v. International Life Insurance
This text of 99 S.E. 162 (Spratling v. International Life Insurance) 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.
Opinion
1. Under the provisions of the “automatically non-forfeit-able” clause of the original policy of life insurance here involved, the accrued loan value, until consumed, would operate to continue the policy in force as fully and completely as though the premiums had been paid by the insured from funds derived from other sources. Perkins v. Empire Life-Insurance Co., 17 Ga. App. 658, 659 (87 S. E. 1094).
2. Liability under the terms of a policy of life insurance, when assumed by another company, must be takén and construed subject to such “exemptions, modifications, and limitations” as are imposed by the contract of reinsurance. 1 Joyce on Insurance, § 131-A; Fireman’s Fund Insurance Co. v. Aachen & Munich Fire Insurance Co., 2 Cal. App. 690 (84 Pac. 253).
3. Where the insurance commissioner of this State, acting under the [610]*610authority of the superior court and in behalf of an insolvent insurer, its creditors, and its policyholders (Lester v. Wright, 147 Ga. 242, 93 S. E. 408), enters into a contract of reinsurance with another company, under which agreement such of the assets of'the original insurer as the court may determine belong to the policyholders, on account of the reserve liability under the policies, are to be taken over by the reinsurer after being first liquated by the insurance commissioner, and-where, in view of the existing uncertainty as to the extent of the original insurer’s insolvency, the reinsuring company, under the terms of the agreement, reserves unto itself a lien charged against the policies of insurance thus assumed by it, in an amount sufficient to equal the full reserve liability thereon, and where the contract of reinsurance specifically pi-ovides that “Cash loans and cash surrender values shall not be available to the policyholders of [the original insurer] for a period of one year from the date of this contract, nor thereafter exqept to the extent of the amounts turned over to [the reinsurer] for the credit of each policy, plus the net additions to reserve from premiums paid by the policyholder in cash, diminished by the surrender charge hereinafter designated, until, said liens shall be fully liquidated,” if the insured,■ within the period of one year from the date of the contract of reinsurance, allows his policy to lapse on account of non-payment, of premiums, the loan value which accrued under the original policy would not be available for -the purpose of automatically extending the insurance as a claim against the reinsuring company under the terms of the agreement thus entered into by it.
4. The rule would not be altered by the fact that under another provision of the contract the reinsurer agreed that the amount of such “liens,” representing the reserve liability under the policies, should be insured in its own company, arid had guaranteed that the premiums for such- additional insurance should be taken care of from the profits accruing in its management of such reinsured contracts. Without ' this provision, the effect of the reinsuring contract would have been the primary assumption by the new company of the- face of the original policies, less the amount of the reserve liabilities represented by the “liens” set up in its favor; but under the obligation thus made, the reinsuring company became at once liable, in accordance with the terms of its agreement, for the full face value of the original policy, without any diminution to the extent and in the amount of the reserve liability which had accrued under the old policies—tentatively assumed to be lost on account of the insolvency of the original company. Under the quoted terms of the reinsuring contract,' however, the amount of the reserve liability which accrued under the old policies and which might in any event actually be intact for future delivery to the new company for the benefit of such policyholders was not to be to any extent available to policyholders either as loan value or as cash surrender value for a period of one year, and could be available then only to the extent of the amount thus actually turned over to it by the insurance commissioner. The judge did not err in sustaining the demurrer to the petition.
Judgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
99 S.E. 162, 23 Ga. App. 609, 1919 Ga. App. LEXIS 239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spratling-v-international-life-insurance-gactapp-1919.