180 Ind. 9 | Ind. | 1913
This suit was brought in June, 1909, to recover upon a life insurance contract issued on December 9, 1907, to John R. McGinnis of Gibson County, Indiana, and payable, $3,000 to appellee, the mother of the insured, and $2,000 to Emily S. McGinnis, the wife of the insured. John R. McGinnis died in Colorado on January 16, 1909:
The contract or policy in suit contained, among others, the following provisions: “Incontestability. After one year from date of issue this Policy shall be incontestable if the premiums have been duly paid.” “The insured may at any time during the continuance of this Policy, provided the policy is not then assigned, and subject to the rules of this company regarding assignments and beneficiaries, change the beneficiary or beneficiaries by written notice to the Company, at its Head Office; such change to take effect on the endorsement of the same on the Policy by the Company. ’ ’ In answer to appellee’s complaint seeking to recover on this policy, the appellant set up an affirmative defense in seven paragraphs, to the first, third, fourth and sixth of which demurrers were sustained. These rulings are here assigned as errors together with the trial court’s action in overruling appellant’s demurrer to the amended second paragraph of appellee’s reply to appellant’s fifth paragraph of answer.
The third paragraph of answer avers the questions and answers set out in the first, the part of the application for insurance in which the insured certified that his answers were correctly recorded by the medical examiner and that they were true, and his warranty as to all statements and answers made by him; that the application was duly executed and made a part of the policy; that appellant relied upon the warranties, and that because of the fraud therein said contract was void.
The fourth paragraph of answer asserts in addition to the warranties alleged in the first and third, the alleged false and fraudulent representations of the insured, the return to him of the premium he had paid in consideration of executing the release to appellant, said release being as follows: “This is to certify that I have this day received from the Indiana National Life Insurance Company, of Indianapolis, Indiana, the sum of One Hundred Forty and 45-100 Dollars ($140.45) which is the amount of my first annual premium together with six per cent. (6 per cent.) interest thereon, on policy No. 2931, issued to me by said Company December 9, 1907. I hereby accept the above amount in full satisfaction of said policy, and release said company from further obligation npon aforesaid policy. In witness whereof, I hereunto set my hand, this 30th day of November, 1908, at Y. M. C. A. Farm, Edgewater, Colo. John R. McGinnis.”
The sixth paragraph of answer, in addition to the averments of the first as to answers to questions in the medical examination, warranties, etc., alleges fraud based upon anb swers to certain other questions and that prior to the making of said application for insurance the insured was afflicted with a certain venereal disease and falsely and fraudulently answered that he was not so afflicted and did
The fifth paragraph of answer pleads the failure to pay the second annual premium, due on said policy on December 9, 1908. The amended second paragraph of reply to this paragraph of answer alleges that the beneficiaries in said policy and the insured through an agent at Princeton, Indiana, made an offer to pay said premium, due on said policy by tendering a cheek, which was good, in compliance with a request of the notice of the company to the insured to “make all cheeks payable to the company”, by mailing the cheek to the company; that it was received and returned to the agent with a notice to him that the policy had been cancelled, and enclosing to him a copy of the alleged concellation, and requesting such alleged agent to return the policy to the company.
To reverse the lower court by this appeal, appellant insists that the several paragraphs of answer to which demurrers were sustained, were sufficient to constitute a good defense, and that appellee’s amended second paragraph of reply to the fifth paragraph of answer does not state facts sufficient to avoid said paragraph; that under the terms of the insurance contract the application for insurance by the insured, with his answers to the questions and the medical examination, were warranties and appellant had the right to rely thereon; that the answers as made by the insured were made knowing they were false and with fraudulent intent; that the contract of insurance was legally can-celled and the liability of the appellant terminated by the agreement between the insured and appellant.
Appellee, to sustain the rulings and judgment, contends that the contract of insurance was executed, delivered and accepted on December 7, 1907; that it matured by the death of the insured on January 16, 1909; that such contract specifically provided that “after one year from date of issue this policy shall be incontestable if the premiums have
¥e cannot conceive that it can be seriously contended that said paragraph of reply was not sufficient to avoid the answer of nonpayment of premiums, especially in view of the fact that the appellant denied all liability on the contract of insurance on the sole ground that the same had been cancelled by the agreement between the insured and the insurer, to which agreement appellee was in no way a party; and where it followed the denial of liability with a demand that the policy be returned. The court committed no error in overruling the demurrer to this paragraph of reply.
The most difficult questions here presented are resolvable into the following: (1) Does the incontestable clause preclude the company from asserting as a defense to its liability, the charge of false and fraudulent answers of the insured, the warranties in the contract, the mutual cancellation of the policy by the insurer and the insured without the knowledge of the beneficiary for a cash consideration paid by the company to the insured, where the answer asserting such defense is filed more than one year after the execution, delivery and acceptance of the contract ? (2) Had the beneficiary, upon the execution, delivery and acceptance of this policy, such an interest therein, either vested, absolute, defeasible, indefeasible, qualified, limited or otherwise, that her interest cannot be taken from her without her knowledge or consent by an agreement cancelling the policy, made between the insurer and the insured, to which she is not a party where the policy contains-this clause as to the change of beneficiary: “The insured may at any time during the continuance of this policy, provided the policy is not then assigned, and subject to the rules of this company regarding agreements and beneficiaries, change the beneficiary or beneficiaries by written notice to the company, at its Head Office; such change to take effect on the endorsement of the same on the policy by the Company?” In other words, where the terms of the contract specifically provide for the
We shall endeavor to consider these questions in the order stated. The record discloses that this action was commenced on June 16, 1909, more than one year and six months after the execution of the policy. It seems to be a well-recognized principle of insurance law that a provision in a contract of insurance limiting the time in which the insurer may take advantage of certain facts that might otherwise constitute a good defense to its liability on such contract, is valid and precludes every defense to the policy other than the defenses excepted in the provision itself. It also seems to be generally held that such, a clause precludes the defense of fraud, as well as other defenses, and that it is not invalid on the theory that it is against public policy, provided the time in which the defenses must be made is not .unreasonably short. An examination of the following cases will show that the holding of the courts of this country has been, almost universally, that every defense to a policy of insurance embraced within the terms of the “incontestable clause” is completely lost to the insurer if it fails to make the defense or takes affirmative action within the time limited by the policy. Kline v. National Benefit Assn. (1887), 111 Ind. 462, 11 N. E. 620, 60 Am. Rep. 703; Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Kerr (1910), 173 Ind. 613, 89 N. E. 398, 91 N. E. 230; Court of Honor v. Hutchens (1909), 43 Ind. App. 321, 82 N. E. 89; Peoples Mut. Ben. Soc. v. Templeton (1896), 16 Ind. App. 126, 44 N. E. 809; Wright v. Mutual Ben. Life Assn. (1890), 118 N. Y. 237, 23 N. E. 186, 6 L. R. A. 731, 16 Am. St. 749; Clement v. New York Life Ins. Co. (1898), 101 Tenn. 22, 46 S. W. 561, 42 L. R. A. 247, 70 Am. St. 650; Reagan v. Union Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1905), 189 Mass.
The next question for consideration is, What, if any, interest did appellee, as beneficiary, take or have in this policy at the time of its issuance, delivery and acceptance, and if she had any interest therein, how was it disposed of ? At the threshold of this branch of the case we feel that as here presented this is a new question in this jurisdiction and in so saying ive are not unmindful of the many cases so ably presented by the appellant on this issue, but we cannot concur in the expression: “The law, as it has been declared, will have to be changed, and the authorities overruled before any other conclusion can be reached.” And we might here say that we quite agree with appellant in its expression that “the abandonment and rescission of a contract of life insurance, by mutual agreement between the insurer and the insured, puts an end to the contract,” that is, so far as the insurer and the insured are concerned, but what about a third person for whose benefit the contract by its express terms was made, and who is not only not a party to the agreement of abandonment and rescission, but who has no knowledge of it?
The case of Equitable Life Assur. Soc., etc. v. Stough (1910), 45 Ind. App. 411, 89 N. E. 612, is cited by appellant as being directly in point. In that case there was never a complete delivery and acceptance of the policy. Moreover we think it is clearly distinguishable from the case at bar, in this: the complaint therein alleges that at the time of the death of Stough the policy was in the possession of the decedent and that the defendant about that time, without the knowledge or consent of the decedent, unlawfully and wrongfully took the policy from his possession and deprived him of the use thereof. The court said thereon: “There is no evidence in support of these allegations.” The facts as asserted in the opinion are that at the time the policy was handed to the insured (Stough) he gave the agent of the company his note for $25.00, due in sixty days, as and for a part of the premium on said policy, and before the
Appellant also insists that the case of Eagle v. New York Life Ins. Co. (1911), 48 Ind. App. 284, 91 N. E. 814, is here controlling and that it sustains the Stough case. The Eagle case turned on the right of the insured, as against the interests of the beneficiary, to make a loan on the policy, the terms of which policy required the insurer to make said loan to the insured on his demand and expressly authorized the insured to change the beneficiary at any time. In that ease the court used this language: “Because of the last named provision the beneficiary did not have a vested right in the policy,” citing Equitable Life Assur. Soc., etc. v. Stough, supra. But it must be noted that the court says, when referring to what was conferred on the beneficiary by the policy, that “the policy conferred certain rights upon appellant as beneficiary, but she takes only the rights thus conferred upon her, subject to the limitations and provisions in the policy contained.” So it seems that the policy did confer on the beneficiary some thing of some kind; but the learned jurist, in writing the opinion of the. court, quotes the following from the ease of Union Central Life Ins. Co. v. Woods (1894), 11 Ind. App. 335, 339, 37 N. E. 180, 39 N. E. 205: “We think it otherwise, however, when the policy expressly provides for a restriction or limitation of the wife’s interest, or makes it depend upon a future contingency, such as an arrangement for a loan of money from the company to the husband and a repayment of the same out of the proceeds of the policy, when due. Whatever may be considered the true consideration underlying the insurance, the wife cannot be said to possess a greater interest in the policy than is given her by the terms thereof. When
The case of Hopkins v. Northwestern Life Assur. Co. (1900), 99 Fed. 199, 40 C. C. A. 1, would seem by a casual reading to determine that a beneficiary in a policy of insurance, which permits a change of beneficiary, has no vested interest in the policy, but upon a careful consideration of the opinion it will be noted that the court therein uses the words “vested interest”, not by themselves but coupled with the word “permanent”: “Where the policy contains the stipulation recited, there can be no such permanent or vested interest as is claimed by the plaintiff * * * makes impossible the existence of such permanent or vested interest in such beneficiary.” (Italics ours.) Thus it seems that the words permanent and vested are used in the same sense and as having the same meaning. And in that case there was no attempted cancellation of the contract by the insured but a surrender of the policy to the former company and the issuance in lieu thereof of a contract of the new company. In each contract the wife
In most of the jurisdictions of this country, except Wisconsin, the authorities seem to be uniform that in an ordinary life insurance policy, made payable to a beneficiary and which does not authorize a change of beneficiary, the named beneficiary has an absolute, vested interest in the policy from the date of its issuance, delivery and acceptance. Kline v. National Benefit Assn., supra; Damron v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1885), 99 Ind. 478; Wilburn v. Wilburn (1882), 83 Ind. 55; Masons’, etc., Ins. Assn. v. Brockman (1898), 20 Ind. App. 206, 214, 50 N. E. 493; Franklin Life Ins. Co. v. Galligan (1903), 71 Ark. 295, 73 S. W. 102, 100 Am. St. 73; Lanier v. Eastern Life Ins. Co. (1906), 142 N. C. 14, 54 S. E. 786; Preston v. Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1902), 95 Md. 101, 51 Atl. 838; Lockwood v. Michigan Mut. Life Ins. Co. (1896), 108 Mich. 334, 66 N. W. 229. And where a policy or contract of life insurance contains the right of the insured to change the beneficiary, such right must be exercised specifically in the manner provided in such policy or contract. Farra v. Braman (1909), 171 Ind. 529, 542, 86 N. E. 843; Mason v. Mason (1903), 160 Ind. 191, 196, 65 N. E. 585; Holland v. Taylor (1887), 111 Ind. 121, 12 N. E. 116; Smith v. National Ben. Soc. (1890), 123 N. Y. 85, 25 N. E. 197, 9 L. R. A. 616; Arnold v. Empire, etc., Life Ins. Co. (1907), 3 Ga. App. 685, 60 S. E. 470; 2 May, Insurance 399E; Bliss, Life Insurance (2d ed.) §§318, 337.
While we understand that the appellant insists that-in such a policy or contract (where the insured has the right to change the beneficiary) the beneficiary does not have a vested or indefeasible interest, but that the interest of the beneficiary is conditional and subject to the exercise of such right by the insured, or is subservient to
In the case of Farra v. Braman, supra, on page 540, the court, in quoting from Holland v. Taylor, supra, referring to the relation of the beneficiary to the contract, said: “ ‘It would be saying too much to say that she- had no right. * * * So long as the contract remained as executed, she had- the right of a beneficiary, subject to be defeated by change of beneficiary by the insured. So long as the certificate remained as executed, the assured had reserved to himself the power to change the beneficiary, and that was the extent of his right in, or power over, the certificate, or the amount agreed to he paid at his death.’ ” (Italics ours.) Again on page 541, the same court, referring to the case of Mason v. Mason, supra, said: “There are cases * * * the principles of equity may be invoked to aid a defective exercise of power by the assured in making a change in the beneficiary.” And again, in referring to the case then under consideration it was said: “In the case at bar there is no room for invoking the aid of equity, as there is no element of fraud therein, and there is no defective exercise by the assured of the power or riglvt to change his original beneficiary.” (Italics ours.) As to the beneficiary having an interest and that the right reserved by the insured to change the beneficiary is the right
In the case of Holder v. Prudential Ins. Co. (1907), 77 S. C. 299, 57 S. E. 853, the court held that the rights of the beneficiaries became vested as soon as the insured and the insurer entered into the contract, and although the policy reserved to the insured the right to change the beneficiary, the insured had no right to surrender the policy for the purposes of cancellation.
In the case of Washington Life Ins. Co. v. Berwald (1903), 97 Tex. 111, 116, 76 S. W. 442, 1 Ann. Cas. 682, the court uses this language. “The wife has an insurable interest in her husband’s life, which she may insure, taking a policy payable to herself or to her children, therefore it cannot be said that the insurance procured by the husband for the wife is a mere gratuity; it is to protect an existing interest, as well as the performance of a duty to the wife. It is a contract about a matter of interest to the wife and she can pay the premiums herself in ease her husband fails to do so. * * * If she has such an interest in the contract that she might protect it against the wishes of her husband and the insurance company by making payments according to the terms of the contract, she is not a stranger to it, and surely her interest is of a character that she cannot be deprived of it without her consent, except by her failure to see that the terms of the contract are complied with. ’ ’
In the ease of Freund v. Freund (1905), 218 Ill. 189, 201, 75 N. E. 925, 109 Am. St. 283, the supreme court of that state, citing Thomas v. Thomas (1892), 131 N. Y. 205, 30 N. E. 61, 27 Am. St. 582, and other New York cases, says that the right of the assured to change the beneficiary is a qualified right; that is, subject to the consent of the company and to the indorsement upon the policy by the company at its home office. Thei tendency of the decisions when carefully examined, is to sustain the rule that a
In the case of Arnold v. Empire, etc., Life Ins. Co., supra, it is said, that the beneficiary of an insurance policy has a vested right in the contract of insurance which cannot be diminished or affected by subsequent agreements between the insurer and the insured which are not stipulated or provided for in the original contract. The vested right of the beneficiary is subject to be divested only in accordance with express provisions of the contract, permitting a change of beneficiary. After reviewing and citing a great number of authorities, the court concluded the question by asserting that “The true rule would seem to be that laid down by May on Insurance §399 0, that ‘if there is express provision for change, * * * a new designation may be made in the mode prescribed, but courts lean to upholding a designation, if clear, though defective in form. ’ Those courts. which hold that the interest of the beneficiary, during the life of the insured, is merely an expectancy, where the insured has the right to change the beneficiary, hold, nevertheless, that the change must be made in strict conformity with the provisions of the policy upon that subject in order to divest the interest of the beneficiary named therein. We have heretofore alluded to the fact that the policy in this case provided for a change of beneficiary, but that the right of the plaintiff in error was not divested by any attempt to comply with this condition of the contract. That the beneficiary of a contract of life-insurance has a vested right in the contract (though it may be divested by the selection under the special provision of the contract of a new beneficiary) admits of no question.” See, also, Smith v. Head (1885), 75 Ga. 755, 757.
In Townsend’s Assignee v. Townsend (1907), 127 Ky. 230, 105 S. W. 937, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 316, the court said, on page 238: ‘ ‘ The only reservation to the insured was the
The contract of insurance in this ease was delivered and accepted on December 9, 1907, was in the possession of the appellee, the beneficiary, was not surrendered to the company. On November 30, 1908, the appellant paid to the insured $140.45 in consideration of the execution of a release. Appellee was not a party to such release and acquired no knowledge of it until December 8, 1908, when appellant returned the check of the agent of the insured and appellee and notified appellee that such contract had been cancelled and requested the surrender of the policy. It seems to us that the pertinent inquiry here is: Who had the title to the policy on November 30, 1908? Certainly some sort of a title thereto was in the appellee and whatever that title was, she could be divested of it only by a strict compliance with the conditions of the contract as therein provided, or by some act or proceeding to which appellee was a party so that she would be bound thereby.
Prom the foregoing we conclude that the attempt to- eoncel the policy and terminate the liability of the appellant
The judgment of the Marion Superior Court is therefore affirmed.