Cole v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.

Cole v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 100 S.E. 893 (S.C. 1919)

Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: October 21, 1919
Docket: No. 10284
Judges: Fraser, Prince, Anderson, Eall
Citations: 100 S.E. 893113 S.C. 221919 S.C. LEXIS 180
Disposition: Reversed and new triel ordered.

Cited by 3

Syllabus

Insurance — Distribution" op Profits to Prevent Forfeiture; Policy.— In an action on a life insurance policy issued March 1, 1911, where it appeared insured died May 24, 1918, and premium due March 1, 1918, was not paid, exclusion of evidence as to the amount of profits earned by the policy at the end of 5 years, on the ground that the policy provided for a distribution of profits only at the end of 20 years, was improper, the Insurance Commission having, before the policy was issued, forbidden a distribution period of more than 6 years; for, whatever the expressed language of the policy might be, the law would read it to provide for a 5-year and not 20-year distribution period.

Summary

Action by Mollie E. Cole, administratrix of the estate of William H. Cole, against the Jefferson Standard Rife Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant on a directed verdict, and plaintiff appeals. cite: As to the authority of the Insurance Commissioner: Code of 1912, vol. I, sec. 2669; 84 S. C. 256; 130 Minn. 32; 164 N. W. 495; E. R. A. 1918f, 545; 38 Minn. 281; 37 N. W. 782; 6 E. Ed. 253; 77 Minn. 483 ; 46 L. R. A. 442; 100 Minn. 445; 10 E. R. A. (N. S.) 250; 147 Wis. 327; 37 E. R. A. (N. S.) 489 ; 204 U. S. 364; 51 E. Ed. 523; 136 Wis. 146; 17 E. R. A. (N. S.) 821; 143 U. S. 649; 36 L. Ed. 294; 67 Minn. 279; 69 N. W. 1094; 254 U. S. 355; 62 E. Ed. 349; 199 Mass. 190; 127 A. S. R. 485; 42 S. D. 291. As to estoppel: 181 U. S. 74; 45 E. Ed. 758. As to duty of defendant to apply dividends to payment of premiums: (Miss.) 78 So. 362; E. R. A. 1918d, 1010; note E. R. A. 1918d, .1914; 23 E. R. A. (N. S.) 304 (note by annotator) ; 91 Wash. 324;E.R. A. 1918a, 1240; 78 S. C. 77. As to insured being entitled to extended insurance: 82 S. E. (Ga.) 825; 121 Minn. 395; 141 N. W. 518; 34 Ann. Cas. 163; 45 Conn. 480; 29 Am. Rep. 693; 19 Ind. App. 49; 49 N. E. 44; 65 Am. St. Rep. 392; 126 Eed. 82; 115 Ky. 100; 103 A. S. R. 301; 78 S. E. (Va.) 639; 246 U. S. 365; 62 E. Ed. 773; 173 Mo. 329; 72 S. W. 935.; 82 S. E. 823; Bouvier’s L. Diet, (defining foreclosure) ; 115 Va. 257; 78 S. E. 639, 640; 9 Mise. Rep. 6; 29 N. Y. Supp. 44; 12 Mise. Rep. 127; 33 N. Y. Sup. 67; 91 S. E. (Ga.) 429. As to forfeitures: 103 S. C. 288; 25 Cyc. 872; 16 A. & E. Enc. E., 2d Ed. 941; 29 A. & E. Ene. E., 2d Ed. 1097; 16 A. & E. Enc., 2d Ed. 934; 16 A. E. Enc. E., 2d Ed. 938; 54 S. C. 603; 13 S. E. Rep. 236. cite: As to authority of the Insurance Commissioner: 13 E. R. A. (N. S.) 1046; Vance on fnsurance, pp. 86, 87; 63 S. E. 304. As to dividends — forfeiture — application: 101 C. C. Á. 56; 76 S. C. 535; E. R. A. 1918a, p. 904; 68 S. E. 1035; 38 S. W. 116; 1st Cooley on Insurance 123; 109 N. Y. 421; 117 N. Y. 459; 130 N. W. (Neb.) 434; b. R. A. 1918a, pp. 904-906. As to waiver: 90 S. C. 1; 65 S. C., p. 1.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Fraser

The opinion of the Court was delivered by Mr. Justice Fraser.

This is an action on a policy of insurance on the life of William H. Cole, issued by the Greensborough Life Insurance Company on March 1, 1911, and assumed by the Jefferson Standard Rife Insurance Company on September 20, 1912.

William H. Cole died on May 24, 1918. The deceased had borrowed on his policy the sum of $309. The premium due on March 1, 1918, of $91.92 was not paid. The policy provided for a distribution of the profits only at the end of 20 years. The plaintiff offered to prove the profits at the end of 5-years. The evidence was excluded by the Court.

The failure of evidence to prove that there was sufficient funds in the hands of the company was, of course, manifest, and the presiding Judge directed a verdict for the defend-' ant. From the judgment entered upon this verdict, the plaintiff appealed.

Before'this policy was issued, the Insurance Commission of South Carolina had issued an order forbidding a distribution period of more than 5 years. This policy violated that order making its distribution period 20 years, instead of 5 years.

On the trial of the cause, the plaintiff offered to prove the amount of profits earned by this policy. The defendant objected on the ground that the policy provided for a distribution period at the end of 20 years and that no profits could be claimed before the end of 20 years. This objection was sustained, and from this ruling the • plaintiff appealed.

*25 1. This ground of appeal must be sustained.

The insurance commissioner required as a condition precedent to the issuance of a license, that no policies should lie issued with a longer distribution period than 5 years. T<< this the Greensborough Life Insurance Company promised compliance and accepted its license. The State is a party, and a controlling party, to all contracts. Whatever the expressed language of the policy may be, the law reads that contract to provide for a 5-year and not a 20-year distribution period. The testimony was competent, and its exclusion was error.

2. There was evidence from which waiver might be inferred, and that question should have been submitted to the jury.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 3 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

Powell v. Home Insurance164 F. Supp. 654 (E.D.S.C. 1958)
Long v. Monarch Accident Ins. Co. of Springfield30 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1929)
Clinkscales v. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance23 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 1942)

Most recent

Powell v. Home Insurance164 F. Supp. 654 (E.D.S.C. 1958)
Clinkscales v. North Carolina Mutual Life Insurance23 S.E.2d 1 (S.C. 1942)
Long v. Monarch Accident Ins. Co. of Springfield30 F.2d 929 (4th Cir. 1929)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list