Court Opinion

ID: 9442643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 18:54:42.430974+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:10.347341
License: Public Domain

. BRATTON, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
Section 617 of the National Service Life Insurance Act, as amended, 38 U.S.C.A. § 817, is the only statute which expressly vests United States District Courts with jurisdiction to entertain suits upon contracts of National Service Life Insurance, and it is limited to suits for recovery upon policies which are in force and effect. It does not include actions brought against the United States for the reinstatement of policies which have lapsed. Meadows v. United States, 281 U.S. 271, 50 S.Ct. 279, 74 L.Ed. 852; Taft v. United States, 2 Cir., 127 F.2d 876. But this was not an action for the reinstatement of the policy. It may be that an action may be maintained in the District Court of the District of Columbia to compel the Administrator of Veterans Administration to reinstate a lapsed policy or to vacate the action of the Administrator in refusing reinstatement if his action was arbitrary and capricious. But this was not a suit against the Administrator and it was not for the reinstatement of the policy. It was one for recovery on the policy, alleged to be in force and effect.
The court did not undertake to set aside the action of the Administrator in declining to reinstate the insurance. The court found *475that the Administrator treated the letter of September 13 and the remittance which accompanied it as an informal application for reinstatement; that the Administrator waived the making of a formal application for reinstatement and the making of a statement of good health; that the payment of premium was accepted and retained; and that the insured was in as good health at the time of making the informal application for reinstatement and the payment of the premium as he .was at the time of the lapse of the policy. And based upon such findings of fact, the court concluded in substance that the policy was in force and effect at the time of the death of the decedent. With that view I agree, and therefore I would affirm the judgment.