The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1872-11-15

AN IMromTASs Decision. -.An important
life insurance case has recently iseen decided
in the United States Circuit Court at Cleve-
land. Ohio, before Judge Sherman in which
the plaintiff was former resident of Portland,
Mrs Lucy L. Robinson by name. She resided
here at the time of the fire, and while here
took out a policy of $3OO0 on the life of her
son. She subsequently removed to Shelby,
Ohio, having married Mr. Ande rson. Much
of the testimony in the case was collected here.
AS the decision contains many points of in
terest to Insurance men and to the public
generally we append the official report:
Lucy l. Anderson ct al VS.. Etna Life r.
surance Company. This was AN action brought
on policy of insurance to recover SO, ZOO in
surance on the life of the son of the plaintiff
| for her benefit. The insurance was effected in
Boston, Massachusetts, through an agent of
the company, the plaintiff, at the time, resid-
ing in Portland Maine. subsequently she re-
moved to Shelby, Ohio. The defense set up
was: first, misrepresentation in the applica-
| ton; and, second, non-payment of the third
annual renewal at the time specified in the
policy. The claim of the plaintiff in answer to
these defenses was: first, as to the misrepre-
| sentatiOn in the application, that true and cor
rect answers were given to the agent of the
company taking the application, and that he
| failed to put them down correctly.
Second-As to prepayment OF the premium
at the time specified in the policy-that at the
time the agent took the application for said
policy, it was understood that plaintiff was to-
| pay the premiums theron as they became due,
and the agent at that time and also subsequent
ly thereto, told her that due notice of the time
the premiums, became due, and the amount
thereof, would be given her, and that she SHOULD
pay the premiums wherever she happened to b.
to any agent of the company and that they haG
agents in all the States in all prominent places
that the company failed to notify her of thu
time when the premiums became due and the
amount thereof in due season, and that she
made due efforts to find an agent at several inn
portant places, near where she lived, without
success, they having DO agents in that section
The company claimed, il answer, that they had
not received notice of her change of rcsidenc,
before the premium became due.
The court charged the jury in substance or
| the first point: That the representations in
{ the application 1.-THE application being made .
part OF the policy were warrantiess, and if an,
unless the jurv should find from the evidences
that the questions, the answers to which al
stated in the application, the company seek tG
take advantage of, and which they claim to b,
FALSE were truly answered by the plaintiff and
that the same were not correctly written dowr
by the agent. In that case the company il
! estopped from taking advantage of these mis-
statements-and that the acts of the agen
were the acts of the company.
1t charged on the second point: That it tn
renewal premium was not paid on the LIST O
June, 1870, the policy was forfeited unless tn
jury should find from the evidence that tn
agent of the company at the time of effectin
the insurance, or subsequent thereto, agreed t
give plaintiff seasonable notice Of the amour
and the time when the premium became due
upon which agreement both parties for tim
had acted and that the company failed to sen,
such notice, having been duly notified of he
change of residence, and the plaintiff relyin
and acting on the promise of the agent faile
to pay the premium when due; in such case tn
Company would be estopped from taking ad
: vantage of the forfeiture.
The case was closely contested on the part o
the Company, occupying the Court during tn
entire week. The Jury after being out fe,
hours returned verdict in favor of the plaintiff
for So, 2770O. 4fSf
H. S. Sherman Geo s. Kahn and S. S
Bloom, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hutchins &
Ingersoll, for d ,fendant