On October 1, 1963 Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company issued a policy of hospitalization to Angelina County, providing hospital and medical benefits to any employees of the county choosing to be insured. On April 2, 1965, Kenneth Gaskamp was hospitalized. At that time he was an employee of the county. As such, he sued the insurance company for benefits under the policy, having paid his premium for April, 1965. Upon trial before the court,, judgment was rendered for Gaskamp. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company will be called appellant. Gaskamp will be called appellee.
Appellant “issued this policy to Angelina County (herein called the Policyholder) in consideration of the application of the Policyholder and of the payment of premiums in accordance with the terms of this policy, and agrees to pay benefits as provided herein with respect to any employees insured hereunder.” (Emphasis ours)
The policy covered all employees choosing to be covered by the policy. The county auditor collected the monthly premium from those employees electing to be covered by the policy. The auditor was the paying agent for these employees. The policy did not require that all employees of the county had to join in the policy. Appellant had accepted premiums covering some but not all of the employees of the county. Each month the auditor advised appellant of the names of each new employee to be covered, as well as names of employees no longer desiring to be covered by the policy. This was called the Monthly Adjustment List. Appellant prepared and sent such form in March, 1965 to the auditor for the premium due April 1st, 1965. Additions, terminations and other changes since the last Monthly Adjustment List were made by the auditor. This statement with notice of premium due had on it “Keep this notice; your check is evidence of payment. Receipt will be furnished on request.”
On March 25th, 1965, appellant wrote the county auditor, Mr. Hicks, that the “listing you recently sent us against a current listing of ours I find eight employees that we have on active list that you do not. These employees are: (names omitted here)
If these employees are no longer in your employ please complete Request for Change forms, which „ I am enclosing for your convenience, giving us full termination information and as soon as this has been done, mail forms to this office for processing.
Also I notice that A. R. Geye is the correspondent for this case and as it appears that he is no longer employed to whom should all correspondence be mailed in the future.”
In answer to the letter from appellant of March 25, 1965, the auditor promptly filled out the forms requested as to the employees who had terminated their insurance and listed employees to be covered by the policy who had not been under the policy before, together with the premium respectively owed on the policy for the month of April. Appellee’s premium on the policy was paid through the auditor by check No. 3315 dated March 31, 1965 in the sum of $49.70. This check paid the premium of appellee and three other employees of the county. The check was cashed by appellant. Appellant attempted to terminate the policy as of April 1, 1965 when it issued a check dated April 22, 1965 in the sum of $213.12 payable to Angelina County supposed to represent a refund of premiums paid. It was received by the auditor sometime after April 22, 1965. It was not cashed.
On April 4, 1965 claim of appellee for benefits under the policy was completed on a form furnished by appellant and forwarded to appellant. On March 25, 1965 the auditor sent appellant a letter stating, “This will notify you that the County of
Under Section 2, “Extended Benefits”, the policy provides that if an employee becomes confined in a hospital for * * disease within a period of three months immediately following the discontinuance of the insurance of such employee under this part (referring to the insuring clause) hospital benefits shall be payable as though confinement had commenced prior to such discontinuance, if the confinement is due to a disease which commenced prior to such discontinuance. Kenneth Gaskamp testified he saw Dr. Reid and went to the hospital April 2, 1965. He was sick some 5 days to a week before he saw Dr. Reid and went to the hospital. He was at home. He had a bad cold, for which his wife gave him 9 or 12 shots of Penicillin. It ran into pneumonia. His fever got high. He stayed in bed all one day before going to the hospital and for several days he was up and down but able to walk. He stated that if he had been called on an emergency call he would have gone whether he was able or not. He was a constable. With the evidence from appellee as to the nature and duration of his illness, the trial court could have found that under Section 2, “Extended Benefits”, the policy was in force for three months after April 1, 1965, with appellee covered by the insurance policy.
There being no findings of fact or conclusions of law, this court assumes the trial court found every disputed fact in favor of appellee. Construction and General Labor Union, Local No. 688 v. Stephenson, 1950, 148 Tex. 434, 225 S.W.2d 958; Old National Life Insurance Co. v. Guest (Tex.Civ.App.1942), 163 S.W.2d 241, err. ref.; Rolison v. Puckett, 1946, 145 Tex. 366, 198 S.W.2d 74.
Appellant’s contentions embodied in their sole point of error are overrruled. Judgment of the trial court affirmed.