Case Name: HIGHTOWER v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1922-09-01
Citations: 121 S.C. 378
Docket Number: 10996
Parties: HIGHTOWER v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
Judges: Mr. Justice Fraser concurs.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 121
Pages: 378–394

Head Matter:
10996
HIGHTOWER v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
(113 S. E., 478)
Insurance — Question op Waiver op Formal Steps por Reinstatement op Policy Held for the Jury. — On evidence of retention by life insurer of money order for 'enough to pay for reinstatement of a lapsed policy, and of insured’s nonreceipt of letter from insurer inclosing a reinstatement blank, held, that the question of waiver of policy requirement of formal application for reinstatement and showing of insurability was for the jury.
Before Townsend, J., Bamberg, November, 1921.
Affirmed.
Action by Marrie Hightower against Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. Judgment for plaintiff and defendant appeals.
Statement oe Facts
This is an action on a policy of life, insurance, in which the plaintiff herein was named as the beneficiary. At the conclusion of the plaintiff’s -testimony, the defendant made a motion for a nonsuit, which was refused, and at the conclusion of all the testimony the defendant made a motion for a directed verdict, which was also refused. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000 (the full amount claimed), and the defendant appealed upon the following exceptions:
(1) “His Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in overruling defendant’s motion for nonsuit upon the ground of such motion; the error being that his Honor should have held that under the terms of the contract of insurance and plaintiff’s testimony the policy in question had lapsed for nonpayment of premiums, and should have granted the nonsuit.”
(2) “His Honor, the presiding Judge, erred in overruling defendant’s motion for directed verdict upon the ground of such motion; the error being that his Honor should have held that under the policy and testimony there was no evidence whatsoever of any waiver by defendant’ company, and should have directed a verdict for defendant.”
The defendant relied upon the following as a defense:
“Said Elijah Hightower made written application to defendant for insurance on his life, and pursuant to said application defendant duly made and delivered to said Elijah Hightower its said policy of insurance, numbered two million three hundred and eight thousand six hundred seventeen-A (2308617 — A) for one thousand ($1,000.00) dollars, said policy bearing date April 14, 1919, a true and correct copy of which is hereto attached, marked ‘Exhibit A,’ and made a part thereof. Said policy was made in consideration of the payment of the first premium thereon of fifteen and 79/100 ($15.79) dollars, the receipt of which was acknowledged therein, which said premium constituted payment’ for the period terminating on the 14th day of October, 1919, but that in and by the terms of said policy it was provided that said policy was issued in consideration of the application therefor and of the payment of the semiannual premium of fifteen dollars and seventy-nine cents upon each 14th day of April and October thereafter for the first twenty (20) years, and of the payment annually thereafter of ten ($10) dollars on the 14th day of April until the death of the insured. That in respect to the payment of premiums said policy provided: ‘All premiums are payable in advance at said home office or to any agent of the company upon delivery, on or before date due, of receipt signed by the president, vice president, secretary, or actuary of the company, and countersigned by said agent.’ ‘A grace of thirty-one days, without interest charge, shall be granted for the payment of every premium after the first, during which period the insurance shall continue in force. . . . The payment of a premium or installment thereof shall not maintain the policy in force beyond the date when the next premium or installment thereof is payable except as herein provided.’ That said Elijah Hightower duly jiaid the semiannual premiums due on October 14, 1919, and April 14, 1920, either on the due dates thereof or within the period of grace above specified, but wholly failed to pay the premium due October 14, 1920, or any portion or installment thereof, whereby, under the terms of said policy, said policy lapsed on November 14, 1920, and there was no insurance in force under said policy or otherwise at the time of the death of said Elijah High-tower.”
The policy also contains this provision:
“Reinstatement. — If this policy shall lapse in consequence of nonpayment of any premium when due, it may be re^instated at any time upon the production of evidence of insurability satisfactory to the company. . . .”
Testimony
In so far as pertinent, the testimony for plaintiff was as follows:
Marrie Hightower, colored, being duly sworn, testified on direct examination:
“I can read; that (referring to exhibit) is the policy delivered to my husband by defendant. I remember that premiums were due in amount $15.79 every six months in April and October.' When'the October, 1920, premium came due, the money was not sent off on the. 14th of October; it was a few days late; it was sent by money order on 30th of November, 1920, to Columbia. My husband remained in good health about three weeks after 30th of November, 1920.
“Q. When the October premium came due, who notified you? A. No gentleman at all.
“Q. Did you receive any written notice? A. No, sir.
“After the money was sent off, I did not hear anything from the defendant until about 24th of January, 1921, after Elijah was dead. After 30th of November and before Elijah died I wrote the company once or twice. The letter dated 24th of December is one letter I wrote. (Exhibit No. 4.) I wrote the company to know if they received the money and what they were going to do about it, and got no reply at all.”
Cross-examination:
“The defendant sent my money order back to my lawyer ; they kept it a good while, but did not keep it and spend it. I did not get a letter from the company, dated 1st of December, until the 24th of January. I admit I did not pay the prémium when due; that’s why I wrote the letter; the premium was due on 14th of October. I never got a letter, nor a reinstatement blank, till Elijah was dead. I never got but one letter from them. My correct address is Bamberg, South Carolina, and it was not changed between 14th of October and time Elijah died.
“Q. How many times did you hear from them between the time you first sent the money order and the death of your husband? A. I did not hear from them; not one time.
“Q. Did you get a letter from them, in which they told you that your policy was already overdue, and they could not take your money, but they would send you a form to have Elijah fill out, and if he filled it out and stood a good examination they would send it to the home office, and the home office would reinstate the policy? A. What time you mean?
“Q. On the first of December? A. No, sir.
“Q. Did you ever send you a letter like that? A. No, sir; I never heard from them.
“Q. They never sent you a blue thing for Elijah to fill out? A. No, sir; when I got the letter, he was dead.
“Q. The}'- did not write you but one letter? A. No, sir; just one.”
Redirect examination:
“Q. You know that your husband lived long enough after the money was sent off to be reinstated, if he had a chance to? A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And he was in good health? A. Yes, sir.
The pertinent testimony of defendant was as follows:
Miss E. J. Barnes, white, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
“I am assistant cashier of defendant in its branch at Columbia. I received the money order for $15.79 from Elijah Hightower on 1st of December. I then wrote him a letter (Exhibit No. 3), and filled out the necessary part •of the reinstatement blank, and mailed the letter to Elijah Hightower, Bamberg, South Carolina. I personally mailed the letter. I also got a letter from Elijah Hightower, dated the 24th of December, and thereupon wrote him another letter asking him to return that blank (Exhibit No. S'). ■Some time afterwards I sent another letter, with another reinstatement or revival form. (Here the original revival form is identified by Miss Barnes ,as being in her handwriting, this form having been produced by plaintiff under notice to produce. Exhibit No. 6. Miss Barnes also identified the stub of the revival form retained at Columbia office, and introduced in evidence. Exhibit No. 6.) I attached this stub to the money order, and put both in the safe, to be kept until the revival form was returned. I wrote High-tower a third letter, just like the first one, inclosing another revival form.”
Cross-examination:
“Q. Did I understand you to say that you mailed these letters yourself? A. Yes, sir; I know I mailed the letters. I dropped them in the mail box, but, of course, don’t know of my personal knowledge whether or not they arrived in the town of Bamberg.”
J. R. Roseberry, white, being duly 'sworn, testified as follows, on direct examination:
“I am manager of the Columbia office of defendant. I know the money order was received about 1st of December. I got sick and left the office about 17th of December, 1920, and returned to the office about 7th of April, 1921. Mr.. W. E. Brehm took charge of the office about the time I left, and continued in charge until I returned. When premium payments are presented in person beyond the grace period, our custom is not to accept them, except on an application for reinstatement; but, of course, we. cannot prevent people mailing in premium payments after ithe • expiration of the grace period. When such premiums are mailed in, we immediately write the insured that the policy has been canceled, and send them application for reinstatement. We attach the money to the reinstatement stub and put both in the safe. We do not deposit or use the money. We keep the money pending correspondence with the insured as to his reinstatement. The length of time we keep the money varies; some people respond promptly, but there are others to whom we have to write several letters. If the case seems hopeless, we return the money and tell the insured his policy has been canceled. The policy in this case was canceled on 14th of November, the day the grace period expired; but the actual record of cancellation was made in our office on 27th of November, the day we returned to the home office the official premium -receipt,, unpaid.”
' W. F: Brehm, white, being duly sworn, testified -as follows on direct examination:
“I am a general deputy manager for the defendant. My duties require me to take charge of districts to relieve men who are absent. I took charge of the Columbia office when Mr. Rose,berry got sick. I have seen the money order in question; in fact, I returned it, but I did not know it was in the Columbia office until this suit was started, when it was brought to my attention by a young lady in the office; they found it in the safe. I kept the money order some' ten days or two weeks after the suit was started; in fact, I did not know what to do with it. I think I returned it on the 25th of February, 1921.”
Albert H. Phillips, white, being duly sworn, testified as follows:
Direct examination:
“I am a clerk employed by the Metropolitan Rife Insurance Company of New York, and on September 15,, 1920, and since, have had charge of the addressing and mailing of notices of premiums due. On September 15, 1920, I duly mailed on behalf of the said company a printed notice of premium due¡ to Elijah Hightower at Bamberg, South Carolina, who was insured under policy No. 2308617 -A. Such notice contained the number of the policy, amount of premium due on such policy, and the day when the said premium was payable, and th'e notice was inclosed in a securely sealed postpaid_ envelope, having a return address printed thereon, and duly addressed to Elijah High-tower at Bamberg, South Carolina, which was the address of said Elijah Hightower last known to me and said company. This premium notice was mailed by depositing the same in the post officq in the city of New York. I was duly authorized by said company to mail said notice. The notice was not returned to the company as uncalled for, or for any other reason. The reason that I know that I mailed the notice on said date is that a number of similar notice,s were prepared for mailing on said date, and I personally delivered said notices to the post office in the city of New York, and on the day that I mailed them, September 15, 1920, I made affidavit to the effect that I had so mailed them, and said notice to Elijah Hightower was included in that affidavit.”
Cross-examination: '
“I have no personal knowledge that said premium due notice was actually received by Elijah Hightower.”
EXHIBITS'
Exhibit No. 2
Bamberg, S. C., Nov. the 29th, 1920.
“2308617.
“Dear Sir: I write you all tonight to let you all hear from me and to send and ask you all to please excuse my long time not sending my payment. The time have been so that I could not get it no sooner, but hope that you all will excuse me for it.
“Yours truly, Elijah Hightower.”
Exhibit No. 3
(Letter from Defendant’s Columbia Office.)
“December 1st, 1920.
“Elijah Hightower, Bamberg, S. C.- — Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your money order for $15.79, for which please accept our thanks. This premium was due on October 14th, and as the grace period of thirty-one days had expired before you sent in the money, it is’ necessary for you to complete a satisfactory reinstatement blank in order that your'policy may be restored. We¡ are sending you necessary blank, on which you will please enter in the proper places any medical attention or illness which you have had since your policy was issued. When this is done, kindly sign your name on the line marked with a cross, have some one to sign at the left of your signature as a witness, and return the form to me in the inclosed envelope. Please have these signatures in ink. Upon receipt of this form properly completed we will give the matte,r of reinstatement prompt attention.,
“Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention, we remain,
“Yours truly,
“B. Superintendent.”
Exhibit No. 4
“Policy No. 2308617-A
“Bamberg, S. C., December the 24th, 1920.
. “Dear Sir: Did you all get that $15. and 79c that I sent you all on the 30th of November last for my policy? I have not received the receipt yet. Please send it, or let me know did you get it. Elijah Hightower.”
Exhibit No. 5
“December 29th, 1920,
“Elijah Hightower, Bamberg, S. C. — De,ar Sir: In response to your letter of December 24th, 1920, we beg to advise that we wrote you under date of December 1st, acknowledging receipt of your money order, a.nd sent you a form for you to complete, but you have not returned it to us. This form must be completed, signed, and witnessed before we can revive your policy, and we would thank you to give the: completion of this form immediate attention.
“Yours truly, Gen. Deputy in Charge.”
“Columbia, S. C., February 25, 1921.
“Mr. W. E. Free, Esq., Bamberg, South Carolina — Dear Sir: Re Marrie Hightower v. Metropolitan Fife Insurance Company. We herewith return to you as attorney for Marrie Hightower, post office money order, number 59036, serial number 96823, dated Bamberg, S. C., November, 1920, payable to Metropolitan Fife Insurance Company, in amount $15.79, and also duplicate thereof, 107925, dated January 19, 1921. You will observe that neither the original nor the duplicate was indorsed or cashed by the Metropolitan, but both weye held by this office pending reinstatement or refusal to reinstate policy number 2308617--A by our home office. This policy lapsed for nonpayment of a premium which was due October 14, 1920, and since the policy was not reinstated we are returning the money orders.
“Yours very truly, Wm. E. Brehm,
“WEB/D General Deputy in Charge.”
Messrs. Elliott & McLain, for appellant,
cite: Defendant had to accept tendered premium conditionally: 14 S. E., 506; 107 N. W., 646; Colley Br. on Ins., 2395; No waiver; 108 S. C., 137; Acceptance of premium, on conditions which were never met did not revive policy: 1 Wil-liston Conts., Secs., 52, 81. ' '
Mr. W. E. Bree, for respondent,
cites: Waiver: 42 S. C., 14; 43 S. C., 26; 46 S. C., 546; 96 S. C., 375. Estoppel: 110 S. C., 315; 25 Cyc., 858, 9; 25 Cyc., 867; 95 U. S., 333; 96 U. S., 577; 106 U. S., 37.
September 1, 1922.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. CitiEE Justice Gary.
The foregoing statement of facts practically embodies the entire record. There is no doubt that the failure of the insured to pay the premium which became due on the 14th of October, 1920, caused the policy to lapse, but it was provided in the policy that it might be reinstated at any time upon payment of the past-due premium and the production of evidence of insurability satisfactory to the company.
On the 29th of November, 1920, the insured wrote a letter to the defendant, inclosing a money order in the sum of $15.79, to pay the premium of insurance necessary for a reinstatement of the policy. This letter with its inclosure' was duly received by the company, which introduced testimony to prove that it wrote a reply, dated the 1st of December, 1920, inclosing a reinstatement blank, and that said letter was duly placed in the post office, properly addressed to the insured. The plaintiff offered evidence to' show that the letter was not received by the insured. This is the, main issue in the case.
The fact that the defendant may have deposited the letter, dated the 1st of December, 1920, in the postoffice, while raising a presumption that it was received by the insured in due course of mail, nevertheless there are facts ' and' circumstances tending to rebut such presumption, sufficient to require the submission of such issue to the jury. As we have reproduced these facts and circumstances, it is not necessary to discuss them in detail. If the defendant company retained the premium tendered by the insured, and failed to take the steps which defendant claims were taken to advise the insured of the necessity of making formal application for reinstatement, under the circumstances indicated, we think there was some evidence tending to establish waiver.
The judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Fraser concurs.