Court Opinion

ID: 8630240
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-24 19:36:28.869345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:44.614599
License: Public Domain

HUGHES, District Judge.
The defendant objects to the verdict in this case on the ground that the jury got at the amount of the equitable value of the policy by a wrong process and upon incorrect data, and that they erred in not deducting from the equitable value, as found, the amount of the premium notes given by the plaintiff to the company. The supreme court of the United States have decided in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Statham, 93 U. S. 24, that in cases in which, during the late civil war, southern holders of northern policies of life insurance were prevented by the war from paying their annual premiums, those policies lapsed; but that the holders could claim, after the war and the death of the persons named in the policies, the equitable value of the policies at the time of first default in the payment of premiums. In doing so the supreme court meant no more, I think, than to establish a principle of law. Nothing in their decision warrants the conclusion that they undertook more than to settle the legal question. I do not think that it was in the mind of the court, in thus declaring the law, to set out also the data upon which to determine, in every case, what the equitable value which they contemplated really was. The court uses many expressions, apparently designed to illustrate and explain what they mean by “equitable value,” but they nowhere detail, with any attempt at completeness, either the data from which or the process by which this value is to be ascertained. They seem to refer these latter subjects to the actuary and the mathematician, and to leave the jury or the chancellor in each particular case to find as a fact what the equitable value of a policy is. from the best testimony at command. I have no doubt the court used the phrase in its actuarial sense, but I do not see that they said anything intended to deprive the jury or the chancellor of the prerogative of estimating the amount of the equitable value of a policy, upon the strength of such evidence as in each case might be adduced before them. We had a very intelligent investigation of *154this -subject at the trial in this case. The jury was an unusually good one, the trial fair and full, and the argument on either side able and exhaustive. The jury had the advantage of the testimony of very well-informed and competent witnesses, one or two of them learned experts. The question, what was the equitable value of this policy, in December, 1861, when default occurred in- the payment of the premium; and the further question, whether the amount of the premium notes which were given by the plaintiff in part payment of four annual premiums ought to be set off against such equitable value, were elaborately considered, and were both deliberately dealt with by the jury, on full proofs after full argument. Now, if I thought that the supreme court intended in its leading decision on this question to do more than declare that the plaintiff in such a case as this was entitled to the equitable value of his policy, and went on besides to define accurately the data and process for ascertaining its amount, I would feel authorized to examine critically the verdict rendered by the jury, and the data and process which they employed. But I consider that the supreme court intended only to declare the law, and left the jury to find the fact The latter having been done- in this case by the jury, I do not feel authorized to do more than consider whether or not the jury has so grossly erred as to the fact, and so clearly disregarded the law, as to have presented a case for a new trial within the discretion of the court as governed by the ordinary rules observed by courts in considering motions for new trial.
Counsel for defendant have exhibited correctly, no doubt, the process by which the jury got at the $1,615.47 which they found as their verdict I have already said that I .think it belonged to the jury to determine not only what amount they should find, but the process by which to ascertain the amount I could not therefore, interfere with the verdict unless it were grossly excessive. If this case had been before me as a chancellor, I am inclined to think I should have found a smaller amount; but the mere fact that a judge differs with a jury as to a fact does not make a case for a new trial. Defendants complain that the verdict of the jury is for twenty dollars more than it would have been if they had adopted the empirical plan of adding together all the cash premiums which plaintiff had paid up to December, 1861, and, given a verdict for the aggregate, with interest from the close of the war. They complain specially, of this result, that it imposes upon the insurance company the risk, without compensation, of the insurance which stood against them for four years. This is one view to take of the subject though it must be remarked that as there was in fact no death during that period there was in reality no risk. A compensating view of the matter is, that the plaintiff, at the date when his policy was terminated by law (December, 1861), had the right of insuring until the death, •should occur, at a very reduced premium, and also at the death (which did occur in a very few years) to the amount insured for, of $10,-000. This right he lost by operation of law,, and the value which he so lost the company gained by the lapse of the policy; and therefore, in the light of actual events now known, the verdict of the jury cannot be regarded as practically injurious to the company. To the-mind unskilled in the learning of the actuary and the mathematician, the verdict is apt to-appear more liberal to the company than to the plaintiff; and inasmuch as it so nearly corresponds with the result of the science of so learned and expert an actuary as Professor Smith,- who testified as a witness at the trial, I think the verdict commends itself as reasonably correct to practical minds. I see,- therefore, no material objection to the verdict on. the score of excessiveness.
The other objection of the defendants is, that the amount of the notes given for forty per cent, of the annual premiums (four in. all) was not treated by the jury as a valid offset against the equitable value found as already shown. These notes were given by the plaintiff at the solicitation of the company’s local agent, and on the assurance that the scrip dividends, which it was a part of the scheme of this company to declare and pay to its insurers, would be equal to and would pay off and extinguish these forty percent. premium notes. The jury considered that these confident representations of the-company’s agent were sufficient to raise the presumption that the scrip dividends did in fact equal the amount of the notes, and to-throw the burden of proving to the contrary upon the company. The whole matter was very fully gone into by counsel in their argument at the trial; the jury dealt with the case on this basis after full argument as judges of the fact; and, having virtually found as a fact that the scrip dividends did offset the notes, I am indisposed to nullify their verdict on that account. The motion-for a new trial is for these reasons denied.