101 Iowa 558 | Iowa | 1897
-The defendant is a mutual benefit society, doing business on the assessment plan. It has no stock, and is simply an association of persons who, according to the articles of incorporation and by-laws, agree that upon the death of any, each of the survivors will contribute to a fund for the benefit
*562 “Art. 2. The object of this association shall be to guaranty to its members and designated beneficiaries, by means of benefit certificates issued for that purpose, certain sums of money, the members making mutual pledges and giving valid obligations to each other.”
“Art. 7. This association shall have two plans of operation for insuring the lives of persons. One plan shall be styled the ‘Endowment Plan,’ and known as ‘Division A,’ under which it will insure the lives of persons for a term of years, and, if they survive the term of years, pay the insured a sum of money as expressed in a certificate given each person insured.
“Art. 8. Endowment Plan, Division A*.
“Section 1.
“Art. 9. To meet the payment of certificates in division A matured by death or termination of the •term of insurance upon the life of the member therein named, each member shall pay, within 80 days of written or printed notice by the association, upon each ene thousand dollars expressed in his certificate, an assignment, graded according to his age at the time of becoming a member, as expressed in the following table:
$ -* « * * * * * *
“Art. 11, Sec. 5. The payment of matured certificates in this division A, are subject to the following conditions, to-wit: Whenever the division has less than 1,200 members, a payment to the beneficiary or holder of the matured certificates of the amount that a full assessment upon this division will bring shall be a payment in full; but in no case shall the beneficiary or holder thereof receive more than the amount due. on the certificate.”
Plaintiff was a member of division A, and, having ‘ lived the alloted time, brought this action to recover the endowment named in the policy, to wit, three
It is conceded by both parties that the articles of incorporation of the defendant company became a part of the contract between them, and that plaintiff is presumed to have had knowledge of their terms and conditions when he became a member of the company. With the certificate of membership, they constituted the contract between the insurer and the insured, and to all of these papers we must look in arriving at a correct solution of the case. Appellee says, however, that the conditions of the. certificate of membership and articles of incorporation are in conflict, and that Die contract should be construed in his favor, and as
The question resolves itself, then, to this: Is a condition which limits the amount to be paid by an insurance company void because it is repugnant to the original promise? It has never been held to our knowledge that an insurance company may not limit the amount of its indemnity by proper conditions. True, these conditions being made by the company itself, are construed most strongly against it, and so' as not to defeat, without a plain necessity, the claim for indemnity. But it is also true that the different provisions of an insurance contract, like that of any other, must be so construed as to give effect to all. The rule as to rejecting repugnant provisions has application only where the contract contains two provisions which are inconsistent and contradictory. The stipulation and conditions of the contract in this case are not inconsistent or contradictory, except as any condition or limitation in any contract is repugnant. And we are not prepared to go to the extent of holding that all conditions or limitations upon an absolute promise to pay are void. With but few exceptions, the aim of the court in construing a contract of insurance is to treat it like any other obligation, and to arrive at the intent of the parties. These exceptions grow largely out of the fact that the insurer writes the contract at its leisure, and deliberately makes choice of the language it uses, and for that reason the contract should be construed most strongly against the insurer. See Bacon, Ben. Soc., sections 177-179; May, Ins., sections 172-175; Wood, Ins., sections 58-62; Kratzenstein v. Assurance Co. (N. Y. App.) 22 N. E. Rep. 221; Zalesky