Case Name: McClain v. Reliance Life Insurance Company
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1926-02-15
Citations: 170 Ark. 478
Docket Number: 
Parties: McClain v. Reliance Life Insurance Company.
Judges: McCulloch, C.J., concurring.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 170
Pages: 478–484

Head Matter:
McClain v. Reliance Life Insurance Company.
•Opinion delivered February 15, 1926.
Oautney S Dudley, for appellant.
Gordon Frierson and Penix & Barrett, for appellee.

Opinion:
Hart, J.,
(after stating the facts). It is sought to
uphold the judgment under the principles of law decided in Robnett v. Cotton States Life Insurance Company, 148 Ark. 199. We do not think, however, that the principles of law controlling that case have any application whatever to the facts as shown in the record in the case at bar. In the Robnett case the court recognized that the consideration of a contract of insurance is the payment of the premiums by the insured annually or otherwise, as may be agreed upon,' and that, under the terms of the policy, the payment of the premiums at the date due is essential to the continuance of the contract of insurance. The policy in that case had no cash reserve or loan value, and no provision for extended insurance. Hence the rights of the parties were governed entirely by the provisions of the blue note. The blue note was not paid when due, and for that reason, by virtue of the agreement contained in it, it ceased to be a claim against the maker. The cash payment by the terms of the note was treated as the consideration for the privilege which the insured had enjoyed in the extension of his insurance beyond the period provided for under the policy. The rights of both parties, when the conditions prescribed in the blue note were not complied with by the assured, were precisely the same as if the blue note had never been given and the payment in cash had never been made.
In the present case the facts are essentially different. It will be seen by reference to our statement of facts that condition (b) provides that the assured has the right to have the insurance continued in force from the date of default, without future participation and without the right to loans, for its face amount, excluding any out standing dividend additions, less any indebtedness to the company. It is further provided that, if the assured shall not within one month from default surrender his policy to the company, the insurance will be continued as provided in option (b). .Another clause of the policy provides that the length of the automatic extension at the end of the third year is three' years and eight months. Forfeitures are only enforced when it appears that this is the plain intent and meaning of the contract, and the rule applies that the words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the party employing them. There being in the policy a provision for automatic extension insurance where the premium has not been paid when due, and where neither of the other options provided in the policy are exercised, it can not be considered that this provision was abrogated by the execution of the blue note, for the reason that, the policy being automatically extended by its express terms, there is no consideration for the execution of the blue note. It gave the assured no right that the policy itself did nut give him. Moreover, as we have just seen, the policy contains a provision for extended insurance and provides that it shall be ini force when the owner does not exercise one of the other two options provided in it. By the terms of the policy, the company expressly agrees that, if default shall be made in the payment of any premium, and the assured does not exercise one of the other two options, the policy will be automatically extended at the end of each year for a certain specified time, which is expressly named in the policy.
In the case at bar, the assured failed to pay the premium due at the end of the third year, and under the terms of the policy there was an automatic extension of three years and eight months, and there was no consideration whatever for the provision in the blue note as to the forfeiture of the policy. Hence we are of the opinion that the case is not controlled by the holding in the Rob-nett case, but is governed by the principles of law in Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Henley, 125 Ark. 372, and other cases of that character decided ¡by this court. In one respect, the policy in the Henley case was more favorable to the assured than the one in the present case. It contained a provision that the premiums might be paid semi-annually or quarterly. The policy under consideration contains no such provision, and under it the premiums must be paid annually on the 18th day of May.' The assured made a cash payment of one-half of the annual premium and gave his note for the balance. For the purposes of this decision, it may be said that the insurance company elected to apply the cash payment to the payment of the premium, and thus extended the insurance under the terms of the blue note for six months. This would have extended the insurance to November 18, 1919.
We do not wish to be understood as holding that this was the correct interpretation to be placed upon the blue note in this case, but we have simply assumed this to be so for the benefit of the assured because it is the most favorable construction to be placed upon it. Assuming this to be the correct interpretation, we have a case of insurance extended under the terms of the blue note to the 18th day of November, 1919. Now, under the terms of the policy, there is a further extension of three years and eight months. This would extend the insurance to the 18th day of July, 1923. The assured did not die until the 27th day of January, 1924. Thus it will be seen that, under the most favorable construction which might be placed upon, the policy and the conduct of the company, the extended insurance expired before the death of the assured. It can not be contended that the blue note could in any event extend the insurance more than six months. Such holding would be in direct conflict with the terms of the blue note. It can not be said that the terms of-the policy would extend the insurance more than three years and eight months, because, under option (b), after the policy shall have been in force three years the assured is entitled to an automatic extension of his policy for three years and eight months. But under the terms of the policy there can be no extension, for the fourth year until the whole of the fourth premium has been paid. There is no provision in the policy for any apportionment of the extended insurance, because no provision is made for paying premium except annually. If, as above stated, it can be said that the conduct of the company in: accepting the cash payment for one-half of the premium could have the effect of extending the policy for six months, such conduct on the part of the company could in no way extend the period of time under the policy for insurance. The reason is that the automatic extension: of insurance under the policy is governed exclusively by its terms, and under the express terms of the policy the assured would not be entitled to an automatic extension for the fourth year, which amounts to five years and nine months, until he has paid the whole of the fourth premium.
It follows that, according to the interpretation of the contract and conduct of the company most favorable to the assured, the policy expired before his death.
It follows that the judgment must be affirmed.
McCulloch, C.J., concurring.