Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/96945/united-states-vs-mcclure
Timestamp: 2018-05-24 06:39:31
Document Index: 507046172

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 305', '§ 301', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 304', '§ 301', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 301', '§ 305', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 304', '§ 408', '§ 408', '§ 304', '§ 305', '§ 301', '§ 304', '§ 301', '§ 304', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 304', '§ 304', '§ 305', '§ 304', '§ 305', '§ 304', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 301', '§ 305', '§ 305', '§ 305']

United States Vs Mcclure - Citation 96945 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
United States Vs. Mcclure - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/96945
Case Number 305 U.S. 472
..... for the ninth circuit syllabus 1. a veteran allowed his yearly renewable term insurance to lapse by failing to pay the premium due in february, 1919, when he was suffering from a compensable disability for which compensation was not collected. in december, 1929, when he became permanently and totally disabled, there remained compensation due him sufficient to pay all premiums due on the lapsed policy. held that his insurance was revived under § 305 of the world war veterans' act, which provides for revival of lapsed insurance by application to premium of compensation due. p. 305 u. s. 473 . this is not inconsistent with § 301, which provides generally for conversion of yearly renewable term insurance by july 2, 1927, and declares that "all.....
U.S. Supreme Court United States v. McClure, 305 U.S. 472 (1939)
1. A veteran allowed his yearly renewable term insurance to lapse by failing to pay the premium due in February, 1919, when he was suffering from a compensable disability for which compensation was not collected. In December, 1929, when he became permanently and totally disabled, there remained compensation due him sufficient to pay all premiums due on the lapsed policy. Held that his insurance was revived under § 305 of the World War Veterans' Act, which provides for revival of lapsed insurance by application to premium of compensation due. P. 305 U. S. 473 .
2. Although § 305 of the Act, and § 304, dealing with reinstatement of yearly renewable term insurance and prohibiting such reinstatement after July 2, 1927, both emanated from a single section in an earlier Act, they are to be regarded as distinct parts of the later statute, having been separated by Congress in order to provide for the individual treatment that has been given reinstatement as distinguished from revival of lapsed policies. The separation indicates an intended change. P. 305 U. S. 477 .
3. A proviso is to be read as referring, presumably, to the provision to which it is attached. P. 305 U. S. 478 .
We are called upon to determine whether § 301 or § 305 of the World War Veterans' Act [ Footnote 1 ] applies to a lapsed policy of War Risk yearly renewable term insurance.
from a compensable disability for which compensation was not collected." December 1, 1929, when he became permanently and totally disabled, there remained uncollected compensation due him sufficient to pay all premiums then due on his lapsed policy. The veteran brought suit on his policy alleging total and permanent disability, and, at his death, respondent, as administratrix and individually, filed an amended complaint seeking recovery under § 305. The District Court held that the insurance was not revived under § 305, and entered judgment for the government. The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, [ Footnote 2 ] believing § 301 did not limit § 305 and that respondent was entitled to judgment on the policy, contrary to the result reached by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. [ Footnote 3 ]
That original Act of October 6, 1917, [ Footnote 4 ] provided government insurance without medical examination for persons engaged in war services. Yearly renewable term insurance was granted with provision for conversion into other forms of insurance without medical examination not later than five years after the termination of the war.
August 9, 1921, Congress amended this Act and added § 408. [ Footnote 5 ] § 408 greatly liberalized the rights
By the Act of March 4, 1923, [ Footnote 6 ] Congress broadened both beneficial provisions of § 408 and left it as a single section. But in 1924, when Congress revised the War Risk Insurance Act, [ Footnote 7 ] these twin provisions of § 408 were severed, and thereafter appeared as two separate and distinct paragraphs, §§ 304 and 305. Section 304 incorporated that portion of § 408 which had provided for reinstatement of lapsed term insurance despite physical disability. Section 305 reenacted the second provision of § 408 which had authorized utilization of uncollected compensation for revival of such lapsed insurance. It is of vital significance that Congress, in creating these two new sections was careful to limit reinstatement of lapsed term insurance by concluding § 304 with the pointed proviso "[t]hat no term insurance shall be reinstated after July 2, 1926." But Congress placed no such limitation of the right of revival under § 305, on which this suit is brought.
June, 1926, [ Footnote 8 ] § 301 was amended extending the date for conversion of yearly renewable term insurance to July 2, 1927, and, the following month, the proviso of § 304 was specifically amended to conform to the June amendment to § 301, by prohibiting reinstatement of such insurance after July 2, 1927. [ Footnote 9 ] Although the right of reinstatement under § 304 thus was again specifically restricted, Congress in no way indicated any intention to add the same restriction to the right of revival under § 305 on which the present suit is based. Instead, the benefits under § 305 were extended by the July amendment so as to permit beneficiaries to apply uncollected bonuses to the lapsed policies of deceased veterans. Congress again gave special
attention to § 305 in 1928, [ Footnote 10 ] and authorized the revival of lapsed policies by utilization of compensation otherwise uncollectible because barred by limitations. Continuing the separate consideration and treatment of §§ 304 and 305, Congress, in 1930, once more applied the restrictive proviso to § 304, but not to § 305. [ Footnote 11 ]
The deliberate intention of Congress to apply different restrictions to the right of reinstating lapsed policies under § 304 and that of reviving such policies under § 305 was also made manifest by other changes in the Act of July 2, 1926. [ Footnote 12 ] While reinstatement of yearly renewable term insurance under § 304, but not revival under § 305, was therein prohibited after July 2, 1927, a new proviso was added to § 305 under which the
a restriction to one and not the other -- indicates that a change was intended. [ Footnote 13 ] This is in accord with the presumption that a proviso "refers only to the provision to which it is attached." [ Footnote 14 ]
In the light of the statutory development of the War Risk Insurance Act, there is no conflict between the general provisions of § 301 requiring conversion of yearly renewable term insurance by July 2, 1927, and the special benefits granted by § 305 to that particular group of veterans to whom the government had not paid disability compensation which was justly their due. The benefits of the special provisions of § 305 are extended to every veteran who has "heretofore allowed his insurance to lapse. . . ." The meaning of the words of the statute is apparent, and we need not look beyond the language and statutory development of the War Risk Insurance Act. [ Footnote 15 ] A lapsed policy, whether yearly renewable term or in converted form, comes within the provisions of § 305.
Cf. Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327 , 280 U. S. 337 ; United States v. Perryman, 100 U. S. 235 , 100 U. S. 238 .
United States v. Morrow, 266 U. S. 531 , 266 U. S. 535 .
Cf. Standard Fashion Co. v. Magrane-Houston Co., 258 U. S. 346 , 258 U. S. 356 .