Case Name: WATSON v. SOVEREIGN CAMP. W. O. W.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1921-06-30
Citations: 116 S.C. 360
Docket Number: 10673
Parties: WATSON v. SOVEREIGN CAMP. W. O. W.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 116
Pages: 360–375

Head Matter:
10673.
WATSON v. SOVEREIGN CAMP. W. O. W.
(108 S. E. 145)
1. Insurance — Draftee is "Enlisted Man” Within Terms of Policy. —A draftee is an “enlisted man,” within the purview of a life policy which allowed the insured to join the army, but required notice and payment of extra premium.
2. Insurance — Whether Insurer Waived Extra Premium Held for the Jury. — In an action on a life policy which allowed the insured to join the army and go out of the United States, but required an extra premium, the question whether the insurer, which was operating as a fraternal order, waived the extra premium held for jury, even though the officers of the local branch of the order could not waive anything, it not appearing that the general authorities of the order directed the local clerk, whose duty it was to collect all the funds, to collect the war risk premium.
Note: On validity, construction and effect of provisions in life or accident policy in relation to military service, see notes in 4 A. L. R. 848 ; 7 A. L. R. 382.
Before Memminger, J., Greenwood, September, 1919.
Reversed.
Action by Mrs. Mackie Watson against Sovereign Camp Woodmen of the World on a policy of insurance. From a directed verdict for plaintiff for the amount which defendant claimed to be due, the plaintiff appeals.
The defendant’s motion for the direction of a verdict was upon the following grounds:
1. That under the contract, the liability of the defendant Sovereign Camp, Woodmen of the World, is only 'for such proportion on the face of the certificate or the amount thereof, as the period he lived since becoming a ' member of the order bears to his expectancy of life at the time of becoming a member.
2. That the undisputed testimony shows that under the contract in evidence the only amount that could be recovered is the amount ascertained to be due upon a .correct communism of the contract.
3. The undisputed testimony ¡shows that there ’is no evidence tending to show that any provision of the certificate issued to the deceased or the Constitution and Raws of the order have ever been waived by the Sovereign Camp or any duly authorized agents.
4. The defendant does not claim forfeiture. Therefore, waiver does not arise in the case.
5. The undisputed testimony .shows that the deceased did not exercise his option as contained in the certificate, that is, to notify the Sovereign .Clerk within thirty days after entering the service of the United States and to pay $37.50 in addition to his regular assessments, camp dues, and general assessments.
Messrs. Grier, Park & Nicholson, for appellant,
cite: No waiver by subordinate' body. 1 Civ. Code, 1912, Sec. 2755. Collector of dues is agent for Sovereign body: Id., Sec. 2770. And representations by him in connection with dues and assessments are binding on the Sovereign Camp: 102 S. C., 86. Clause as to “drafted men” should be construed against Camp : 14 R. C. E., 926; 170 U. S., 133; 95 U. S., 673; 24 E. Ed., 565. Meaning of “Bnlist16 U. S. Ct. CL, 202, 213; 40 Conn., 283; 10 Pa., 357; 90 Mass., (8 Allen.) 480; 28 Fed. Cas., 101; 43 Vt, 617; 137 U. S., 157; 34 E. Ed., 644; 30 Conn., 438. Service of draft men involuntary: U. S. Comp-. St., Sec. 2044-a, 2044-b.
Messrs. Dial & Todd, for respondent,
cite: Sec. 2755; 1 Civ. Code, 1912, construed: 95 S. C., 61; 102 S. C., 386; 102 S. C., 413; 107 S. C., 226; 107 S. C., 291; 113 S. C., 430; 207 S. W., 310. Burden on plaintiff to prove waiver: 43 S. C., 26; 107 S. C, 299; 108 S. C., 136. Acceptance of premiums by local agent with knowledge of violation of terms of policy not a waiver: 212 S. W., 310; 96 S. W., 365; 16 E. R. A., (N. S.) 1180;'9 Ann. Cas., 373; 138 S W., 1008; 164 S. W., 296. Bocal agent was without authority as to extra war assessment: 159 S. W., 1113. No waiver here: 113 S. C., 430 ; 48 N. Y. Supp., 9; 79 Me., 572; 72 S. W., 881; 8 Words & Ph, 7375. Bxtra assessment for war service: 212 S. W., 310; 4 Joyce Ins., Sec. 2237; 3 Cooley Br. on Ins., 227. In construing contract intention of parties, and' risks ity mind should control: 2 Ell. Conts., p. 783, note 35; 95 U. S., 23. “Bnlisted men:” 107 Mass., 282; 2 Elliott Cont., Sec. 1511, note 36; 48 N. H., 280. '
June 30, 1921

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Eraser.
Samuel C. Watson took out a policy of life insurance with the respondent. The policy was payable to the.appellant, his wife. The insured was drafted as a soldier, was sent to France, and died there. The policy permitted the insured to join the army and go outside of the United States, but it required notice to the company, and the payment of an extra premium. After the deceased left, his wife went to. the clerk of the local Camp and talked to him about the payment of her husband's dues. Mrs. Watson was short of money, as the payments had not come from the government. Her purpose was to allow the policy to lapse by not paying the premiums. She was urged by the local clerk to keep up the payments. She consented to pay them, but had to borrow the money to do so. The defendant refused to pay the face of the policy, but tendered the sum of $28.80, which it claimed was due under the terms of the policy. The payment of the full amount was refused, because the extra premium for an enlisted man had not been paid. The plaintiff claimed that her husband was not an enlisted man, but was a drafted man, and that the company had waived the payment of the extra premium. The presiding Judge ordered a verdict for the defendant. From the judgment entered upon that verdict this appeal is taken-
The first point cannot be sustained. The deceased was an enlisted man, under the terms of the policy. See McQueen v. Sovereign Camp, W. O. W., 115 S. C. 412; 106 S. E., 32, filed herewith.
The second point must be sustained. There was evidence of waiver and the case should have been sent to the jury under the case of Crumley v. Sovereign Camp W. O. W., 102 S. C., 386; 86 S. E., 954. It is true that the officers of the local camp cannot waive anything, but this clerk was also the agent of the Sovereign Camp, and his duty was to "remit all funds due and belonging to the Sovereign Camp to the Sovereign Clerk, as by law provided." It is also true that this extra war risk premium was to be paid to the Sovereign Clerk at the home office. The respondent says it was to be paid directly to the Sovereign Clerk at Omaha, Neb. The policy does not say it shall be paid directly. The other provision, that the local clerk shall remit all funds, is sufficient provision to cover the extra premium. It appears in the case that no notice of the extra premium was given to that officer who .was authorized to forward all funds. There is no intimation that there was any neglect by any individual agent of the company. There was no evidence or presumption that the beneficiary knew or had possession of the policy, and should have known of the required extra premium. Under these circumstances it was for the jury to say whether the company waived the payment of the extra premium or not.
The judgment is reversed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Watts concur.