Court Opinion

ID: 9832929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 22:18:44.139508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:55.759926
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing by Appellant.
Upon further consideration of this case we have concluded that our first opinion makes the proper disposition of this cause, and that our opinion on appellee’s motion for a rehearing is not correct.
Our attention is called to the fact 'that the language used in the policy involved in the Barnes Case, supra, is very different from *297that language contained in the present policy which deals with the waiver of premiums. In the Barnes Case it was held that the language was ambiguous and should be construed most favorably to the insured. We are not able to say that the language used in the present policy is ambiguous, but, on the other hand, it is apt and unequivocal and can only be construed as meaning that the insurance company agrees to waive all premiums becoming due after the receipt at its home office of due proof that the insured has become wholly disabled from causes originating after the policy had gone into effect. Walters v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 159 Tenn. 541, 20 S. W.(2d) 1038, 1039; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Farrell (Ark.) 63 S.W.(2d) 520; 24 Tex. Jur. p. 862, § 138; Hanson v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., 229 Ill. App. 15; Wick v. Western Union Life Ins. Co., 104 Wash. 129, 175 P. 953; Bergholm v. Ins. Co., 284 U. S. 489, 52 S. Ct. 230, 76 L. Ed. 416.
Akpellant’s motion for a rehearing will be granted, and judgment remanding this cause will be set aside, and judgment here rendered as ordered in our original opinion.