Case Name: INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS' ASS'N v. POWELL et al.
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Jurisdiction: Texas
Decision Date: 1919-06-04
Citations: 212 S.W. 931
Docket Number: No. 3150
Parties: INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS’ ASS’N v. POWELL et al.
Judges: HAWKINS, J., disqualified and not sitting.
Reporter: South Western Reporter
Volume: 212
Pages: 931–932

Head Matter:
(109 Tex. 550)
INTERNATIONAL TRAVELERS’ ASS’N v. POWELL et al.
(No. 3150.)
(Supreme Court of Texas.
June 4, 1919.)
1. Insurance <§=5618 — Mutual Benefit Insurance-Place of Suit — Provision of Policy.
An insurance company cannot enforce a provision of its policy and by-laws prohibiting the maintenance of suits on its policies elsewhere than in the county of its domicile; such contract stipulation being contrary to public policy.
2. Pleading ©=>104(2) — Plea of Privilege —Sufficiency—Negativing Exceptions.
In suit on accident policy, where company’s plea of privilege did not negative exceptions contained in subdivisions 24 and 29 of Rev. St. art. 1830, as to venue, it was properly overruled in view of article 1903, as to sufficiency of plea of privilege.
3. Insurance ©=550 — Mutual Benefit Insurance — Liability—Waiver.
Though by-laws provide that, if a member files claim before his disability ceased, he waives all right to future benefit, insurer cannot reduce its true liability by means of a mere unaccepted offer on the part of insured to receive in satisfaction of his demand less than amount to which he is entitled under Rev. St. art. 4807.
Error to Court of Civil Appeals, Eighth Supreme Judicial District.
Action by E. A. Powell and another against the International Travelers’ Association. Judgment for plaintiffs was affirmed on appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals (196 S. W. 957), and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
W. W. Moores, of Stephenville, and Seay & Seay, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.
R. L. Thompson and E. E. Solomon, of Stephenville, for defendants in error.

Opinion:
GREENWOOD, J.
This case involves first whether an insurance company can enforce a provision of its policies and by-laws forbidding the maintenance of suits on its policies elsewhere than in the county of its domicile.
We have this day determined that such a contract stipulation is contrary to public policy, and that notwithstanding the same, plaintiff in. error was subject to be sued on one of its policies in any county specified in subdivisions 29 and 24, of article 1830, R. S. International Travelers' Ass'n v. Branum, 109 Tex. -, 212 S. W. 630.
The plea of privilege in this case did not negative the exceptions contained in subdivisions 29 and 24 of article 1830, and therefore it was properly overruled. Article. 1903, R. S.
The remaining assignments of error complain of the rendition of judgment against plaintiff in error for tlie full amount which it promised to pay by the policy sued on, because defendants in error had filed a claim for a lesser amount.
It appears that before the expiration of the full period of disability for which the insured was entitled to indemnity he filed proofs of his claim, notwithstanding one of plaintiff in error's by-laws provided that, if a member filed a claim before his disability ceased, he waived all right to future benefits.
In our opinion the utmost effect which could be given to this by-law would be to protect plaintiff in error from further payment after it had discharged a claim presented to it for an inadequate amount. If plaintiff in error had paid the claim originally presented, it would be necessary for us to determine the validity of the by-law, in view of the provision of article 4807, R. S., that companies, such as plaintiff in error, become liable for the full amount provided by their policies or certificates on the happening of the contingencies insured against.
It is decisive of this case to hold that we would not regard it as either fair or reasonable to construe the. by-law here invoked as intended to enable defendant in error to, reduce its true liability by means of a mere unaccepted ' offer on the part of the insured to receive in satisfaction of his demand less than the amount to which he was entitled.
The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is correct, and is affirmed. .
HAWKINS, J., disqualified and not sitting.
<§3^>For other cases see same topic and KEY-NUMBER in all Key-Numbered Digests and Indexes