132 Iowa 652 | Iowa | 1905
Lead Opinion
Atrophy of the optic nerve had all but destroyed the eyesight of the assured, John A. Tuttle, and according to his notion “ the pleasures of earth had gone ” and “ all was getting blank.” Utterly wanting in that courage which buoyed the blind bard:
“ Against Heaven’s hand or will nor bate a jot,
To argue not
Of heart or hope; but still bear up and steer Eight onward ”
— he “ burst the ties that bound him to this world.”
external, violent, and accidental means.” If his life, was taken by his own voluntary act when in the possession of all his faculties, it is needless to say that the injury was not “ through or by accidental means.” If, however, the assured’s act, causing death, sprung from an insane impulse of a disordered and unsound mind, it was neither voluntary nor intentional, but “ through and by external violent and accidental means.” On this point there is some conflict of opinion, but this view is sustained by the better reason and by the great weight of authority. Accident Ins. Co. v. Crandal, 120 U. S. 527 (7 Sup. Cit. 685, 30 L. Ed. 740); Blackstone v. Standard Life & Accident Ins. Co., 74 Mich. 614 (42 N. W. 156, 3 L. R. A. 486); Grand Lodge Ind. Order of Mutual Aid v. Wieting, 168 Ill. 408 (48 N. E. 59, 61 Am. St. Rep. 123); Healey v. Mutual Accident Ass’n, 133 Ill. 556 (25 N. E. 52, 9 L. R. A. 371, 23 Am. St. Rep. 637); 19 Am. & Eng. Ency. of Law (2d Ed.) 75.
Where, then, was the contract made? The association was organized under the laws of Iowa in 1892, with its principal place of business in the city of Des Moines, la. It employed no agents to solicit applications for membership, but relied on the good offices of its members to induce others to enter the association. To this end, blank applications were inclosed, with notices of assessment and other communications, with the thought that traveling men would direct the attention of their acquaintances of that vocation ■to the merits of the organization.' The deceased resided in Kansas City, Mo., and April 29, 1897, signed an application, in so far as material, as follows:
Home Office, 305 Youngerman Block, Des Moines, Iowa. Application for Membership. Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association. Formed for Mutual Benefit for Traveling Men Only. Benefits: $25.00 weekly indemnity, 52*656 weeks. $5,000 in case of death. $5,000 loss of both arms or both legs. $5,000 loss of both eyes. $1,250 loss of one eye. $1,250 loss of one hand or one foot. $2,500 for total disability over 2 years. Fill this blank and forward to F. E. Haley, Sec’y and Treas., Des Moines, Iowa. I herewith enclose $4 and apply for membership in the Iowa State Traveling Men’s Association. Such membership to be based on the following statement of facts, which are warranted to be true and complete: [Here follow 21 questions and answers.] I do warrant the above to be true, and I hereby agree with the said association that I will comply with the requirements of its constitution and bylaws, which, with this declaration, shall be the basis of membership between myself and the said association. I also agree that the said association shall not be liable under its certificate of membership in any manner, except for bodily injuries sustained through external, violent and accidental means, nor shall said association be liable for any injury sustained by me while under the influence of intoxicating liquors or narcotics, or which shall happen on account of, by reason of, or in consequence of the use thereof; nor for accidental death, loss of limb or sight, disability resulting wholly or partially, directly or indirectly, from any of the following causes, conditions or acts, or when I am under the influence of or affected by any such cause, condition or act, to wit: Disease; bodily or mental infirmity; hernia; orchitis; fits; vertigo; sleep walking; medical or surgical treatment or amputation (amputation necessitated solely by injuries sustained and made within fifty-two weeks after the accident excepted) ; voluntary taking of poison; contact with poisonous ivy; intentional injury inflicted by me; voluntary overexertion; wrestling; racing. And I also agree that this application does not entitle me to any benefits for, or on account of, any injuries sustained by me before it is accepted by the board of directors.
He was recommended by Edward Somers, who mailed the application, with the membership fee of $4, at Kansas City, to the secretary of the association at Des Moines. It was received by the latter May 1st, and thereupon promptly “ approved and accepted ” by the board of directors, and a
Counsel for appellant argue that under this state of facts the jury might have found that the contract between the association and the assured was effected at Kansas City, and base their contention on two grounds: (1) That Tuttle, in handing the application and fee to Somers, delivered these to the association at Kansas City, and, as he had not made use of the mails in so doing, there was no implied authority given to the association to deliver the certificate and other papers by post, and therefore these were not delivered until they reached him at Kansas City. (2) That the certificate was not responsive to the application, in that the articles and by-laws contained conditions not contemplated by the application, and hence the contract was not affected until the subsequent consent of Tuttle in Kansas City, manifested by the retention of the certificate and the payment of assessments. These will be considered in the order stated.
The first amounts to an assertion that the proposition to become a member was both made and accepted in Missouri, and for this reason the contract was there consummated. But neither of these contentions can be sustained. Somers neither received- nor expected compensation, though he may have been in a sense the agent of the association within the meaning of the Missouri statute, that one “ who shall receive or receipt any money from other persons, to be transmitted to any insurance company or association either in or out of the State (but not authorized to do business in the State) for a policy or policies of insurance issued by such company or association . . . shall be deemed to all intents and purposes an agent ... of such company or association.” Section 5915, Rev. St. Mo. 1889. But Somers was not the agent in doing something no one but the board of directors could do. The by-laws
But was authority to respond by mail to be implied? The request to communicate an .acceptance by mail may be inferred (1) where the post is used to make the offer and no other mode is suggested, and (2) where the circumstances are such that it must have been contemplated that the post would be made use of in returning an answer. 9 Cyc. 295. In what other way could the assured have anticipated a response ? His application had been forwarded by the post. The matter to be transmitted back was suitable for the mails. The distance was such as to preclude thought of personal delivery. There was nothing in the letter of Somers to indicate that it was to be delivered through him or that either he or Tuttle so desired. We think authority to
The authorities relied on hy appellant do not obviate the conclusion stated. In Scottish-American Mtg. Co. v. Davis, 96 Tex. Sup. 504 (74 S. W. 17), one Couts submitted personally a proposition to buy land. This was accepted with a modification. Thereupon Couts mailed a letter of acceptance, but before it was delivered intercepted it, and procured its return by the postal authorities before its delivery to -the seller, and the court held that he was- not bound, for the reason that the proposition had not been submitted through the mails, and therefore no implication arose authorizing a response to be so transmitted, and, as the letter was never actually delivered, he was not bound. Whether such an inference might arise from other circumstances was not considered. Other eases cited, as Millikin v. Pratt,
We have not adverted to the contention that defendant was “ doing business ” in Missouri; for, even though this be true, it could have no bearing in fixing the locus in quo of the ¡particular contract.
The plaintiff argues that the principle often applied, that where the insurer, after learning of facts establishing a forfeiture, requires the preparation of proofs of loss, he thereby waives the forfeiture, is applicable. We think otherwise. Nothing was done by plaintiff at the instance or request of the association, nor did its letter carry any assurance, save that the blanks were, forwarded merely for their convenience. Proofs of death were exacted as a condition precedent to payment of loss by the by-laws, and the courtesy exhibited in supplying these blanks at the insured’s request ought not alone to be construed into a waiver of a defense, which the insurer was then under no obligation to disclose. The test to be applied is whether the acts and conduct of the insurer are inconsistent with the intention to insist on the defense, Lake v. Farmer Ins. Co., 110 Iowa, 473, and as seen nothing which the association wrote or forwarded can bear such a construction. The court rightly held there was no evidence of waiver. — ■ Affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
I dissent from the proposition that the certificate is to be treated and construed as an Iowa contract. The application was solicited, made and delivered in