*1 Company Republic Insurance Life National A. Hall. Ruth A-2600. Decided June No.
Rehearing 11, 1950. overruled October 697.) (232 Series, 2dW., *2 Storey, Dallas, Gragg J. Willard and Charles H. of for both petitioner. holding Appeals
The Court of Civil that Hall erred Mr. leaving impliedly any premium, accept reasonable space proper the amount; blank for the insurance to fill in the nothing negotiate
that there was further and that policy of Mr. Hall had an at the time death. enforceable his 450; Brawner, American National Ins. Co. 93 W. 2d Life v. S.
Wallingford Co., Ins. Mo. Home Mutual and Marine 30 Fire 46; Fidelity Handley, 2d Ins. Co. v. United Life W. Weatherford, Lang-
Seaberry Hagman, Hill, Paddock & of & Worth, Paddock, don, Hill, Homa S. and Burton B. all of Fort respondents. for correctly Appeals of
The held that Court of Civil application, and insurance was issued in accord with Hall’s to fill in Hall the insurance had authorized premium, full proper amount of the was Pardee v. and effect at the time of his death. Universal force 852; Ander Fire Ins Co. v. Life Ins. Co. son, 2d Sentinel 170 S. W. Union, 649; Lowry Fed. v. American Ins. 196 S. W.
2d 209. opinion of the delivered the Court.
Mr. Justice Garwood Republic Hall, petitioner, A. sued Respondent, Mrs. Ruth alleged Company, insurer, re- for as Insurance Life National spondent’s George Hall, husband, benefit, of of life her W. 10, 1949, April airplane accident killed who denied the existence of petitioner Wyoming. The grounds, one of which was on several contract (cid:127) agreement the essential matter of as to there had findings respondent’s jury were only The rate. and that attorney both amounted $2000 fees reasonable the hereinafter mentioned intended by petitioner to its local mailed when effective
to become trial court judgment of the shortly Hall’s death. before policy and at- the amount of respondent of in favor Appeals by the of Civil torney reformed Court fees was questioned not here attorney for reasons fees eliminate 2d 901. affirmed. S. W. respondent, otherwise facts, dispute about There has not been material deceased, resided who which in substance are as follows: Manufacturing in California was President of Weatherford Co., Weatherford, Texas, application at Weatherford made twenty-year-payment part the latter March Coder, through a Mr. type $20,000 in the amount of petitioner’s usual soliciting agent petitioner, local time, course, signed. printed form, At which Mr. years old, evidently
Mr. Hall and was understood was 36 *3 solicting agent himself and the to in some undetermined degree “overweight” life-underwriting standpoint, from a probably higher require premium a to of him in un- some approximately per year, known amount than that of which $640 age. agent applicant was normal for of his testified that be; he told “I Mr. didn’t know what the rate would special it would to a rate have case.” At the same he time “Q. George (Mr. you Hall) testified as follows: did tell What response that; you in wanted to he told the insurance? A.
Yes; get.” I him Mr. told that was what we could Hall’s secre- tary testify application on the was allowed date of agent, presence in Mr. Hall her and of told that he was going West, a trip on wanted insurance and that “when put (A policies came in I was to them in the safe.” these negotiations “group” policy in was also involved but not Previously transactions, suit.) had to these Mr. Hall this negotiating petitioner with another than and had been premium per quoted an annual rate of thousand dol- $40 gone evidently no further with these lars of you agent, negotiaions, petitioner’s “I want to beat and told premium.” It was also understood man’s between agent being that, petitioner’s Hall a licensed air- Hall and the fly plane pilot, of his busi- plane accustomed coverage for death suf- trips, would include the insurance ness flight, cov- any for such the additional fered evidently subject and erage being to variation amount application contemporaneously having with his executed Hall describing flying questionnaire his company form usual activities. space the amount of application contained blank premium, in. It another was not filled also contained Additions”, space or blank entitled “Home Office Corrections
which, agent, course, of filled in Mr. Hall or the was not agreement corresponding provision of an of form just “my acceptance any preceding signature, his notice, will, further application issued on this without constitute a correction in or addition ratification me space application Company provided to this made in the ” (As hereinafter for ‘Home Office Corrections Additions.’ mentioned, this later filled home office blank was age 44 “Policy issued at rated with the words No extended insurance. extral annual of $100.00. $72.94”).
Premium is read, The last line of executed Agent taking paid this cash “I have $______________beingMo. hereon.” S.S. signed making
At Mr. Hall the time of his agent petitioner’s “Salary order” delivered to Deduction my reading: hereby employer,__________________________________, “I authorize No-------------, $__________,my Policy pay monthly premium Company deduct Republic Life Insurance National month, my salary each until further notice amount from said writing.” contemporane- examination Mr. Hall underwent a medical latter, report ously exami- application; nation, salary questionnaire and deduction order aviation seasonably office home all forwarded *4 24th, day the on March and received there or before contemplated trip. his left on Mr. Hall Weatherford any parties, communication between Without further 7, 1949, purport- policy petitioner, April issued a on or about twenty-year- ing Hall in the amount and on to insure Mr. for, April procured plan applied 8th an endorse- payment and on Insurance, Department the State
ment to made thereon be “Registered” “Approved stating policy and that Legal are Reserve hereon held equal in to the value Securities of Insurance State of in trust the Commissioner agent, being received policy was then mailed Texas.” by Aledo, residence, near April at his Weatherford. him on 9th communicating indicated, petitioner, without As before Hall, age up” from 36 to so that his “rated per year (including per about $100 month or $876 was $72.94 against coverage) per as month aviation year per or about $8.50 per monthly year; lower about $140 a normal being inserted in the “Home Office space in Corrections or Additions” which was policy,, attached to and also stated in elsewhere 1,May accompanied by
The latter was dated but was bearing printed slip stating name and con- “For policy Payroll venience this has dated to conform arrangements applicable Deductions or Bank Order Service plan applied this case. If as issued is for with- force, out modification it is now otherwise it will applicant.” in force be accepted by from it the date made no effort to deliver the its ar- April 9th, Sunday 10th,
rival on or on the 10th. On the Hall, who departure had never returned to Weatherford since his 24th, agent, learning death, killed, March and the of his petitioner. returned the respondent’s While sympathy claim excites less than
many other cases which death overtakes the husband or applied realized, father who has life insurance than later compelled, law, we are applicable principles under and sound reject Except favoring relatively it. especially few rules beneficiary, here, the insured or inapplicable which are life judged upon insurance transactions are the same basis negotiations Texas, as other business contracts or therefor. jurisdictions, adopted
like theory most has not some advanced, relationship times insurance is a matter Delivery status rather than contract. See of a “The Life Insur Policy” by Patterson, Rev., ance Edwin L. Harv. W. early Company Since as as Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Rudolph, spoken agreement our Texas courts have of life insur in the usual ance by contract of an terms evidenced ordinary acceptance; appli an offer and its case the prospective delivery cation of the insured the offer being regarded prospective of the as insurer acceptance. contracts, acceptance
But of all as the case the offer negotiations must a com- evidence plete obligations agreement, acceptance by or no arise. “For completion contract, insurer by to constitute without action *5 insured, acceptance must of the terms and con- be exactly proposed by application. ditions accepts If insurer application only being met, upon certain conditions proposes pro- or visions, a new form of contract with new terms and rejection a of
that action of insurer amounts to 302
original accepted a must proposition, and counter offer which be by Apple- the transaction.” insured in order consúmate Practice, 7151, (Vol. 12, p. 203). man, and sec. Insurance Law Contracts, Ed., 2; Revised sec. 70 n. See also Williston Co., Springfield Ins. v. Motor Fire & Marine Co. Hubbs-Johnson 248; Salisbury App., 2d v. Indiana & Tex. S. W. Ohio Com. 412; Wallingford Co., App., 202 Mo. S. W. Live Ins. v. Stock Co., 46; Ins. 30 Mo. American Ins. Mutual Fire & Marine Home 209; Tex., Lowry, 2d v. v. C. A. F. Morford Cali- Union C. 575, Co., 166 Or. 113 Pac. 2d Life Ins. fornia Western States Co., 45, 629; 290 Pac. v. Missouri Life Ins. 77 Utah Field State recognized Fidelity principle Life is United 979. The same 201, Handley, 2d App., 86 S. which v. Tex. Com. W. Ins. Co. recovery against theory insurer on sustained though “agreed” applicant, to insure the
terms which it original accepted differing in turn were from the applicant. agreed upon in a An element be life insurance essential 7151, premium. Appleman, sec. is the amount of the contract Wallingford Law, 60; Couch, Cyc. supra; Ins. sec. v. Home of Co.; Haynes Ins. v. Midland Nat. Life Marine Mutual Fire & Co., supra; Co.; all Pacific Fire State Ins. Ins. Field v. Missouri Donald, 207. In Ins. 148 Texas S.W. Co. holding that, cited, “Since the rates case last our fire insurance Commission, was it not Insurance had fixed the State parties”, specifically evi be essential that first, subject premium must be means, matter of dently that the by implied to official expressly reference in regulations, contract either insurance, secondly, matter of life State, must fixed rates which are agreed upon. expressly made what is in which present case one Now except offer, it left a detailed would rather formal and premium. It subject matter of the a blank for the essential company, issued and sent received specific premium providing a for a based its obviously own Hall as individual or its estimate Mr. knowledge special risk. Mr. Hall died without agreeing specified therein. The without ever made a letter-offer to if
situation much the same as piece buy particular land “for cash con- landowner to ‘ proceeded the landowner had $____________”, sideration n sign blank, “acceptance” figure at $10,000 in the insert a hardly it to Mr. Hall. One would and return the foot the letter *6 contend buy that Mr. Hall became $10,000, bound the land for dropped when the landowner the returned letter in the mail box or even at the moment Mr. Hall received it and decided in his price satisfactory. own mind that the The returned letter acceptance not an original but is offer itself an “offer- agree petitioner er”. We with Hall’s premium blank, the left was in effect a mere invitation to petitioner him an specified premium make offer awith that, such offer never made known to him it was never ac- cepted so as to make a contract. If Mr. Hall had lived to receive yet legally the he pay premium, could refused have he pay premium. because had never Respondent argues application in effect offered to pay might whatever (though obviously be reasonable charged excess of by the normal petitioner for age, man of petitioner, by “rating up” Hall’s the risk clearly figure had approve). just refused to toAs what above “reasonable”, the normal readily would be one can see how Mr. petitioner petitioner Hall and companies or and other insurance might themselves, anything well differ between nor is there figure actually record to show fixed on was “reasonable” or “standard” under the circumstances. Such theory would, effect, opinion jurors substitute the of twelve parties for that of the and doubtless entail evidence as to what charge this would under similar weight petition- conditions of excess and such medical data as er’s medical examination afforded. Salisbury
A rather similar situation was involved in Co., supra, Indiana & Live Ohio Stock Ins. which was decided Appeal, one of the Missouri Courts of but never has Supreme overruled and been referred Court of has state and one without In that at least other state criticism. applicant left in case amount of insurance was blank following specified insurance, fire an earlier for request amounts, returned with which the property about the cost of more information receipt information, that, “we will do the of such statement agent, applicant’s
very The insurance without best we can”. knowledge, less than with amounts somewhat filled in blanks receipt original application. The those of agent policies for still lower new sent inserted, instructing to return he had him those amounts than applicant rejected by or deliver them if were them property then in were against if the payment countersigned agent had insurable condition. After sought property them, policies before to deliver collection, applicant attempting con- destroyed fire. orig- receipt company, tended “that because the *7 applications resubmit- applications, if the were inal wrote that information, very best we ‘we will do ted with some new say, on the animals as much insurance can’—that is to write applications to plaintiff new as agent could—and submitted agreed blank, thereby plaintiff amount left that with the might accept any amount of insurance that he would policies writ- upon stock, were and that when written complete.” the case was The court ten the contract left in blank but with the amount was one an applicant rejected had thus expressly conclusion that without further a contract made an offer as could become policies were by him the amounts in which act of assent stronger authority definitely therefore, is, a issued. The decision against respondent’s position the Mis- case than in the instant Wallingford Marine Mutual & v. Home Fire souri decision of by way Co.,, supra, of dictum that in it was said Ins. which in premium in the blanks had not filled even if the higher applicant did, assent of the as he necessary specified would have been a premium in the a prerequisite contract. App., Anderson, Tex. Civ. 196 S. W. Ins. v. Sentinel Fire Co. below, contain 649, by respondent and the court does cited regarding in blanks rules a statement effect any type negotiable apply in to blanks instruments
deeds party a with the thereto executes leaves of contract though primarily party, the decision was rested altogether ground. persuasive in It in no event different is case, suggestion parties there no instant in which is figure agreed orally specific premium a ever or otherwise on containing to be and in inserted which the instrument blank obviously (but blank) not one intended to evidence for the transaction, completed agreement a like the settlement case, negotiable Anderson or like the deeds and instruments the decisions to which that case refers. general emergency pur temporary
Cases of for or poses Newark, J., such as Rossi v. Firemens Ins. ofCo. 310 N. 242, Co.,
Pa.
Viewing controversy the instant a somewhat different way, an invi- Mr. Hall’s amounted no more than a offer, only by tation failure to state its mere premium, language express aforementioned to but also its Additions”, the effect “Home Corrections or Office binding application provided space, a would not be accepted policy. provisions Mr. Hall unless Similar that, proceeds applied insurer to issue where the have higher applied for, and the than that obligation accepted, of the insured dates only premiums is acceptance, from later and the accrual regardless postponed accordingly, the date of See Haynes Co., Ins. 60 D. N. W. Midland Nat. Life omitting figure give 110. Here in his *8 figure contemplated necessarily would be that a “addition”, by by way which tendered the home office when, binding upon when, only he ac- would become him cepted accepted policy he did never because He to it had been issued. live know light testimony petitioner
The of the of the officers of documentary saying to more facts amounted no than
policy if Hall not made would not been written Mr. had have on policy was the amount and his the and that application. quite 20-year-payment plan This is stated agreed saying company different that Mr. Hall and the from insurance, including the amount on all essential details of the premium petitioner in its premium. of the That the named naturally satisfactory petitioner policy necessarily was one to agreed to, suggest it would it or even that does not was likely acceptable Mr. Hall. be to $20,000 20- Hall
That Mr. “wanted insurance” application without year-payment plan quite plain from his is effect. his own reference to the oral evidence same though cost, might it whatever mind he wanted at have testimony Conceivably contrary. evidence indicates the expected to receive secretary mean that he his taken to could be satisfactory But to him. policy that would be agreed on a goes prove ever that he none of this might pay whatever he or even that charged. application “that terms of the of the in the face And of information notices statements, representations, promises, given by person soliciting made or toor taking ap- * * * plication binding Republic shall be on the Life National Company, any way rights Insurance or in affect its same unless writing shall Company be reduced to and submitted to the at part application”, its Home Officeas a of this whatever Hall Mr. may secretary presence have said to his in the of the any would be without effect here event. jury finding petitioner
The that Mr. Hall and both intended policy agent may to be effective when it mailed was to the disregarded. question what, anything, parties if agreed to, they “intended”, not what and since the evidence point entirely documentary, this any was almost event undisputed, the decision to be made therefrom was one rather than fact. foregoing printed conclusions are not affected agent, including
form sent with the the statement: “If plan applied as issued is on the for without modi- force, fication it is now in it will be in otherwise force from accepted by applicant.” Clearly the date it is not Nor,
misled that statement because never saw it. parte petitioner, way an ex statement could it in right Hall, lived, reject affect the of Mr. had he premium. applied because of the amount of the As facts particular meaning, case its for whatever relevance it may have, simply would not be effective accepted until because of “Home Office Correc- tions or made on the Additions” writing particular premium therein. *9 “registration” Petitioner’s with In the the State surance did Commission create contract when one other gives “registration” wise did not exist. No statute this effect, it, nor did Hall ever know so as to about way misled it. Like the the abovementioned notice form sent agent, right deprived it could in no event have Mr. Hall of his reject policy if premium. the the dissatisfied with judgments reversed, The of both courts are below and the having evidently fully developed, judgment case here respondent, Hall, nothing by that Mrs. rendered Ruth A. take suit. her
Opinion delivered June Taylor dissenting.
Mr. Justice majority holding respectfully I dissent from the the on account of show as matter lack of a facts meeting minds, question insurance contract the life testimony opinion the not made. I am of the the raised jury inquiring special to the the con- issue submitted whether jury’s finding intended made. The is that tract to be made was applicant the and the so intended. testimony, shown, pertinent
The as is later evidences the requisite mutual intention to make the contract sued on. it, found, judge jury
The trial so viewed and Fort Appeals, opinion Worth Court of was Civil evidence show, opinion upheld judg- sufficient to so a unanimous finding. ment rendered trial court on that fact probative testimony dispute is almost without to that effect. facts, stripped surplusage,
The essential of irrelevant are George applicant, airplane pilot, prepara- A. tory leaving airplane trip, on a two month’s told the com- agent pany’s deal, with whom he was accustomed to that he $20,000 policy, wanted a application life filled out therefor and, agent exactly monthly since the did not know what premiums gave figure, salary would him a deduction order for monthly premiums corporation (at $------------ Weatherford) president, of which Hall was to send with the application, payment. The insurance considered the application, report physical examination all Hall’s and (taking so), other material matters about two weeks to do accepted salary order, and retained the deduction issued the application made, thereto, on the attached the agent. good applicant health, mailed it to the inwas only years old, overweight, was in some measure necessi- tating agent years (not that he be rated a few known suggestion just many) years. how older than 36 There is no good applicant was not in health or that and he executing delivering payment were in collusion. Hall blank, thereby order in advance that
might rate, applicable determine the which it did and wrote it company accepted in the retained security order, policy, up required issued the set reserve mailing policy attached, and, before registration agent, com- sent it to Austin the insurance no variance There was between missioner. *10 policy.
attached proceeds theory majority opinion on of com- some The 308
pany’s having made a policy, counter offer to issue Hall a pending killed, which was when he was and that therefore the parties did not intend to the contract make issued to Hall. The majority opinion point decides the case on identical of whether point could from be collected Hall. This depends upon whether and he intended make a contract, question which is the basic involved. Campbell, Manager Secretary Assistant and com-
pany’s policy-issue department policy that no ever testified was issued application policy, unless there for that and application, attached, part when of con- became tract; also, testified, issuing he question that it, the policy had Hall’s for it issued requested required
on that and neither nor words, another. which other on Hall’s was the basis policy. issued Hall his 1949, May 1, The April 7, issued dated when provided (and writing that unless otherwise agreement) there time is no other dates back to the secretary application. company’s testified, policy reveals, delivery requirement its is made requirement policy. terms. That was omitted from the As stated Insurance, 627, Cooley’s p. p. 1in loe. cit. actual Briefs delivery (absent requirement) not essential is Ed.), validity (First p. on Insurance the contract. Couch Handley, seq. Fidelity 222 et Co. v. fatal, U. Life Ins. S. W. S. 2d as a are to the effect. It is matter same making a filled of a contract amount blank is range party it here in when one trusts to another in the narrow rating up healthy 36-year-old man involved of because overweight. Anderson, somewhat Sentinel Fire Ins. Co. 649; principle Jur. 708. In words the Tex. W. signer’s agreement uncertain to leave blank an amount to be ascertaining party who the means of
filled the other has is, amount, be, present under correct has held to the facts, principle. a sound delivery Provision for was omitted from Hall Hall’s delivery impossible manual
and the knew would be going trip (in in too short a time on the Hall was him) airplane done; killed crashed and and con- no detail sequently left unattended to left. before gave jury consideration to pointed doubtless matters making finding its above as basis the insurance out *11 immediately company intended become effective mailing it. assumption Both the and Hall acted under the both, they contract, appears made a as above. actions be, fact, together raised issue of considered must say least, policy contract as to whether was intended. judge jury The trial sponse the issue and the found in re- submitted * * * George Hall and the intended said “that * * * immediately, at insurance to become effective the time of ** *
mailing part further action without on the said * * * my opinion no is found in the record for Hall.” basis finding. holding contrary foregoing as a matter of change Furthermore, face, question, there was part until it learned of Hall’s death which just days recovery occurred two after it mailed the finding made, my on the Mrs. Hall the courts below opinion, upheld by should be this Court. 28,
Opinion delivered June 1950. Roy
Frances al v. L. et S. Weaver Ham al. et July No. A-2606. Decided 1950.
Rehearing overruled October (232 704.) W., Series,