As a beneficiary under a group life insurance policy carried by Gar Wood Industries on its employees, plaintiff sued defendant, tbe insurer, to recover the proceeds of the policy on the theory that Charles H. Norwood, her husband, was insured thereunder at the timе of his death. Defendant denied that Charles H. Norwood was covered by the insurance at the date of his death. Parties agreed there were no factual issues requiring jury determination and filed cross-motions for summary judgment . The trial court granted defendant’s motion and plaintiff appeals.
The only issue presented is whether the insurance was in force as to Charles IT. Norwood on the date of his death. Plaintiff and defendant each state three questions involved, but an answer to the issue as above stated necessarily resolves аll questions raised by the parties.
April 27, 1949, Gar Wood entered into an insurance contract with defendant insuring the lives of certain Gar Wood employees. This contract was effective May 1,1949, and continued in force through date of Charles H. Norwood’s death. July 2, 1960, Gar Woоd executed a union contract with Local No. 250 (DAW) APL-CIO which was effective through September 1, 1962. August 22, 1960, Charles TL Norwood was hired by Gar Wood аnd became insured under defendant’s policy July 1, 1961. Under the union contract, Gar Wood’s regular work week was Monday through Friday and
“Termination of Insurance. The insurance on any employee shall automatically cease at the earliest time indicated below:
1. On the date of termination of his employment. Termination of active service shall constitute termination of employment, except as provided below.” (The balance of this provision has no аpplication to one in the position of Charles H. Norwood.)
The insurance contract further provided:
“Payment After Termination of Insurance. If any employee dies within 31 dаys after the termination of his insurance and while he is entitled to convert his insurance in accordance with the paragraph еntitled “Conversion Privilege” herein, then the company will pay the amount of insurance which was in force on the date of terminatiоn of insurance immediately upon receipt of due proofs of death.”
To bring herself within this 31-day period, plaintiff contends the union contract must be considered in construing the termination of insurance provision of the insurance contract. She claims if this is done, Nоrwood’s termination of employment was November 26th, when he actually received the telegram notifying him of his displacement. If plаintiff is correct in this position, she is entitled to recover.
It is the opinion of this Court that plaintiff is not correct for two reasons. The insurаnce contract provides:
“The policy and the application of the employer, copy of which is attachеd to and made a part of*539 this policy, and the applications of the employees, if any, shall constitute the entire contract between the parties.”
This provision complies with the statutory requirements found in CLS 1961, §§ 500.2226(2) and 500.4434 (Stat Ann 1957 Bev §§ 24.12228[2] and 24.14434). It means plaintiff’s recovery must be based on the insurance contract. Hawthorne v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (1938),
In the second place, accepting arguendo plaintiff’s position that the union contract must be considered in construing the termination of insurance provision, section 8, article 13 of the union contract provides that a “bumped” employee is subject to immediate layoff without advance notification. The telegraphic notice plaintiff relies оn is not part of termination under section 8, but is rather notice to qualify for re-employment under section 5 of article 13.
The insurance relied on by plaintiff was not in force on the date Charles IT. Noi’wood died and the trial court is affirmed, with costs to defendant.
Notes
This proсedure is known as “bumping” and is provided for in article 13 of the union contract. Section 8 of this article provides that when “bumping” ocсurs, the displaced person is subject to immediate layoff without advance notification. This section also provides, “Sueh employees shall be given a layoff determination prior to leaving the plant which shall be processed in accordance with section 5 above.”
Details of this procedure are found in section 5 of article 13 of the union contract.
The conversiоn privilege provided in the insurance contract is as follows: “If written application and payment of premium are made by аny insured employee to the insurance company within 31 days after termination of his employment for any reason whatsoever, the insurance company will issue, without evidence of insurability, any policy of life insurance (without disability benefit) applied for, which is customarily issued by it, except term insurance, in an amount not greater than the amount of the employee’s life insurance under the group policy at the time of sueh termination. The new