29 Ind. App. 658 | Ind. Ct. App. | 1902
Appellant issued to appellee a policy insuring bis life in tbe sum of $1,500 for ten years from September 15, 1889, agreeing to pay him that sum September
The complaint avers that appellee paid the first five premiums before maturity, and before another premium became due he offered to make a legal surrender of the policy, and at the same time demanded of the company a paid-up non-participating policy for five-tenths of the face of the policy, and that the company refused to receive the surrender of the policy, and also refused to issue the paid-up' policy; that if appellant had issued to him the policy as der manded it would have become due and payable to him on the 15th day of September, 1899, in the sum and of the value of $750; that on the 28th day of October, 1899, appellee borrowed $1,500 of appellant and assigned the policy to it as collateral security, which policy was so held by appellant until the 27th day of October, 1899, at which time the loan was paid without recourse to the collateral; that after the loan of $1,500 was paid, appellee demanded payment of the value of such collateral, to wit, $750, which appellant refused to pay. It is also averred that appellee has performed all the conditions and terms of the policy and the contract on his part. The’appellee asks damages in the sum of $750.
The premiums on the policy were paid for the years 1889, 1890, 1891, 1892, and 1893. The premiums for 1894 and following years were not paid. Appellee insists that the evidence shows that the policy was still in force in November, 1894, at which time he requested appellant’s agent to
The evidence shows that O. E. Everett was appellant’s agent. His name appears upon the application for insurance as general agent. He countersigned the receipt given for the first premium as agent. The policy in question was issued by-the company through his agency. He had no authority to issue policies. The four premium notes payable September 15,1890, 1891, 1892, and 1893 were signed by appellee and his wife, the beneficiary. The note payable September. 15, 1890, was paid September 12, 1890; the one due September 15, 1891, was paid September 1, 1892; the one due September 15, 1892, was paid seven or eight months after due; and the one due September 15, 1893, was paid August 21, 1894.
Mrs. Whetzel, wife of appellee and beneficiary named in the policy, testified that after the second premium was paid she called on Everett, at Et. Wayne, in 1891, and “asked him if he would extend the time of each payment on the policy one year,” which he agreed to do. On Saturday before the State election in 1894/she, acting for herself and husband, called on Mr. Everett and told him they had traded their farm, and demanded a paid-up policy, and he said he would get it; that they heard nothing from the company or Everett, and she went again in May, and while there he wrote to the company for a paid-up policy; wrote that he had written in Hovember, and asked them to explain why they had not sent it, and about five or six days afterwards her husband got a letter, with a certificate of renewal enclosed, stating that Mr. Whetzel must be examined before he could have a paid-up policy; that Mr. Whetzel proceeded at once to have renewal certificate made out; then appellant wrote that the note for 1894 must be paid;
Appellant’s secretary testified that it was the secretary’s duty to issue a paidmp policy if demanded; that appellee never made a demand for a paid-up policy before it lapsed; that Everett was at one time general agent of the company in Indiana, but never had authority to issue policies; that witness was never advised by Everett that a paid-up policy was demanded by appellee; that on July 1, 1895, witness received from Everett an application for the renewal of the policy, which was approved by appellant, and appellee notified, through Everett, that his policy would be reinstated
Appellant’s treasurer testified that on September 24, 1894, he sent to appellee notes for the premiums due September 15, 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898; that he had sent a receipt to the agent for the premium due September, 1894, which was returned unpaid in his next report to the company ; that the premium notes were never received; neither appellee nor his wife ever demanded a paid-up policy.'
On September 24, 1894, appellant’s treasurer wrote appellee enclosing premium notes payable September 15, 1895, 1896, 1897, and 1898, and stating that he would he pleased to receive them at an early date, when signed by appellee and his wife. On October 11th the treasurer again wrote concerning the mortgage loan and requesting that the premium notes he signed and returned by the next mail. On November 9th he again wrote concerning the loan and stated that the notes had not yet been returned. On November 20th he again wrote concerning an extension of the mortgage loan, and stated: “I find that all'that is now necessary to complete the extension is the return of premium notes No. 63,713, issued upon your life, due September 15, 1895, 6, 7, 8, respectively, for $135.65 each, enclosed to you in my letter of the 11th ult., duly executed by yourself and wife. Please he good enough to see that the same are returned to this office upon receipt of this letter.” On December 11th another letter from the treasurer requests that these premium notes he executed and returned at once. In none of these letters is anything said about the payment of the premium due September 15, 1894.
The policy seems to have contemplated the giving of a note for each premium, as it provides that after three years’ premiums have been paid, “except in case of failure to pay at maturity a premium note,” the company will, upon surrender of the policy while in force, issue a paid-up policy. Eailure'to pay any one of the first four notes given for pre
It has been held that the above conditions relating to the nonpayment of the notes are not consistent with each other, and that the condition most favorable to the insured must be adopted. Union, etc., Ins. Co. v. Jones, 17 Ind. App. 592. See Northwestern, etc., Ins. Co. v. Hazelett, 105 Ind. 212, 55 Am. Rep. 192. And the payment of a premium note is in fact the payment of a premium. Each of the notes given stated that it was given for the premium on the policy, and that the policy shotild, at the option of the company, become null and void on failure to pay the note at maturity. The execution of the premium notes was not a payment of the premiums, but simply procured an extension of the time within which to pay them. A forfeiture clause set out in the policy is stipulated in the notes. The failure to pay a premium note at maturity had the same effect as the failure to pay a premium. So that the extension of the time for paying the notes beyond their maturity was nothing more than a further extension of the time for paying the premiums, which had already been extended through the execution of the notes. Strauss v. Union, etc., Ins. Co., 170 N. Y. 349, 63 N. E. 347.
After appellee had paid five premiums, and before the sixth became due, he was entitled, upon surrender of the policy, to a paid-up policy for five-tenths of the amount insured. If the time for paying the premium due in September, 1894, had previously been extended for one year, the policy was in force in November, 1894, when a paid-up policy was demanded. The demand was made upon the general agent for a paid-up policy, which he promised to procure. True, this agent had no authority to issue a policy
Tbe stipulation in tbe policy that none of its terms could be modified or changed except in a specified manner could itself be waived by tbe company either expressly, or by tbe conduct of tbe company. Hanover Fire Ins. Co. v. Dole, 20 Ind. App. 333; Phenix Ins. Co. v. Tomlinson, 125 Ind. 84, 9 L. R. A. 317, 21 Am. St. 203; Germania, etc., Ins. Co. v. Hick, 125 Ill. 361, 17 N. E. 792, 8 Am. St. 384; Grubbs v. North Carolina, etc., Ins. Co., 108 N. C. 472, 13 S. E. 236, 23 Am. St. 62; Viele v. Germania Ins. Co., 26 Iowa 9, 96 Am. Dec. 83; Bonnert v. Pennsylvania Ins. Co., 129 Pa. St. 558, 18 Atl. 552, 15 Am. St. 739.
Although a policy may provide that an agent shall have no power to waive a forfeiture, yet tbe company may estop itself, by its conduct, from denying tbe grant of such powers to bim. See New York, etc., Ins. Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U. S. 572, 24 L. Ed. 841; Knickerbocker, etc., Ins. Co. v. Norton, 96 U. S. 234, 24 L. Ed. 689; German American Ins.
Not only was nothing said in any of the letters above referred to about the policy having lapsed September 15, 1894, for nonpayment of the premium, but the letters very clearly indicate that the company, when the letters were ■written, considered the policy sfill in force. We must necessarily conclude from the statements made in these letters that, had the premium for 1894 been tendered at any time during the period covered by the letters, it would have been accepted. In which event appellee would have been entitled to a paid-up policy for six-tenths of the amount insured.
Under the conditions of the policy the agent had no authority to waive the requirement that premiums and premium notes should be paid,at maturity But this condition might be waived by the company, and was waived by its ratification of the agent’s acts in receiving the overdue premiums. The forfeiture clause in a policy is a condition in the company’s favor which it may at any time waive. It is to the interest of both the insured and the insurer that the policy be kept in force. The company elected to continue the policy in force although it could have declared a forfeiture because of the failure to pay the last three premium notes when due. Acting upon the statement of the agent, which the company by its conduct had ratified, appellee could rightfully believe that his policy would not be forfeited because of his failure to pay the premiums at the appointed time. “It is abundantly settled,” said the court
Whether the time for paying the premium for 1894 had been extended beyond the time when a demand was made for a paid-up policy, was a question of fact to be determined from the evidence. If the time had been so extended, no premium was due and unpaid when the demand was made.. There is evidence that this extension was made. Had there been a loss at the date the paid-up policy was demanded, there could have been a recovery on the policy under the ruling in Michigan, etc., Ins. Co. v. Custer, 128 Ind. 25. And had there been a loss, a recovery could have been had only upon the theory that the policy was still in force.
Judgment affirmed.