Opinion ID: 2172611
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: termination of individual insurance

Text: The insurance on a debtor shall automatically terminate if any of the following events occur: (a) the indebtedness is discharged; (b) the indebtedness is transferred to another debtor; (c) this policy terminates, or (d) any one payment toward the discharge of the indebtedness becomes more than sixty days past due; (e) the collateral is repossessed. The City Life policy has substantially like provisions. The City Life policy with reference to suicide reads: If the death of the Debtor shall be caused by suicide, while sane or insane, within two years of the effective date of his insurance, the liability of the Company shall be limited to the return of all premiums paid by the Debtor. The plaintiff seeks to place liability upon the Bank by reason of its conduct toward the plaintiff's intestate within the doctrine of estoppel. Our court has said: Estoppel is a rule of law which prevents a party from asserting his rights when he has so conducted himself that it would be contrary to equity and good conscience for him to allege and prove the truth. His conduct need not be characterized by an actual intent to mislead or to deceive. His acts, declarations or silence must be of such a character as to have the natural effect of influencing the person to whom it is addressed to do or not to do to his detriment which he would not otherwise have done. Holt v. New England Tel. & Tel. Co., 110 Me. 10, 12, 85 A. 159 (1912); Stearns v. Kern, 134 Me. 352, 186 A. 800 (1936); Rogers v. Street Railway, 100 Me. 86, 60 A. 713, 70 L.R.A. 574 (1905); B & M Railroad v. Hannaford Bros., et al. 144 Me. 306, 68 A.2d 1 (1949). We find nothing in the record to compel the conclusion that the Bank was under an obligation to inform the plaintiff of the termination of insurance on a 60-day default in making required loan payment. Lineberger v. Security Life & Trust Co. et al., 245 N.C. 166, 95 S.E.2d 501, 68 A.L.R. 2d 1. No action by the Bank made after the policy had been so terminated could have restored to Mrs. Palmer the benefits of the insurance. The payment of premium after the due date by the Bank and the reimbursement to the Bank by the plaintiff's intestate do not in themselves establish that the Bank was agent for the insurer and thus in a position to waive conditions of the policy. As we have seen, the Bank was acting for the insured. The action by the plaintiff is against the defendant Bank, and the Bank alone. Unless the Bank should be held liable there would be no reason whatsoever to place liability in this action upon the insurance companies as third party defendants. Issues such as, for example, whether the Old Republic coverage continued for one year and therefore after the termination of the master policy, or whether City Life in taking over the Old Republic liabilities could not take advantage of the suicide clause are not decisive in the case. The Old Republic policy covering Mrs. Palmer was properly held to have been terminated before the end of 1963. There was, therefore, no coverage continued or created when City Life took the place of Old Republic as the insurer. Neither Old Republic nor City Life has any reason to retain premiums paid by error on the account of Mrs. Palmer. So, also, the Bank had no reason to charge Mrs. Palmer for premiums paid on her account for insurance which the bank should have known had been terminated. The judgment, however, goes only to the denial of liability of the Bank for loss from failure to provide coverage on the life of Mrs. Palmer. The entry will be: Appeals denied. DUFRESNE and WEATHERBEE, JJ., did not sit.