Court Opinion

ID: 9619858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:34:13.551045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:46:27.503696
License: Public Domain

ARNOLD, Justice
(dissenting in .part
but concurring in result).
The effect of the majority opinion in this case is to hold that there has been “delivery and acceptance” where a policy of insurance is placed in the possession of an agent for unconditional delivery. I do not think we should so .hold.
The application which was signed by the insured and which was attached to the policy and made a part thereof contained the following agreement:
“That the company shall not incur any liability upon this application until the policy has been issued by the company and the first premium has actually been paid to and accepted by the company, or its authorized agent and the policy has been delivered to and accepted by me during my lifetime and good health.” •
*324The policy had been mailed by the company to its agent in Seminole for physical delivery to the insured. No special instructions were given with reference to such delivery and no conditions attached. The policy had arrived at Seminole and was in the postoffice there at the time of insured's death. This is sufficient to constitute delivery of the policy to the insured, see 29 Am.Jur. 165, Sec. 148; Anno. 145 A.L.R. 1434; Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Merkley, 59 Ariz. 125, 124 P.2d 313; Prindle v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of N. Y., Mo.App., 233 S.W. 252; Unterharnscheidt v. Missouri State Life Ins. Co., 160 Iowa 223, 138 N.W. 459; Mutual Life Ins. Co. of Baltimore v. Otto, 153 Md. 179, 138 A. 16, 53 A.L.R. 487 and Anno. 492; but inasmuch as there had been no acceptance by the, insured before his death the contract of insurance would be ineffective if it were not for the fact that the insurance company is es-topped to deny that the policy was in force!
Plaintiff alleged and the evidence conclusively showed that the first year’s premium was paid by the insured and accepted by the insurer’s agent and that no effort was made' to return this premium to the proper party. Tender, if any, of the premium was made by insurer to the plaintiff beneficiary and the brother of the insured, neither of whom was the administrator of the estate' of insured. Lawful tender could only- be made to the administrator ' of insured’s estate, not to plaintiff beneficiary or insured’s brother. State ex rel. National Council of Knights and Ladies of Security v. Trimble, 292 Mo. 371, 239 S.W. 467. There was therefore a waiver of condition precedent on the part of the insurer as a matter of law and the ; insurance company is estopped from claiming that the policy was never in force because not received and.accepted by the insured in .his lifetime. See Pauley v. Business Men’s Assur. Co. of America, 217 Mo.App. 302, 261 S.W. 340, in which the fact situation is almost identical to this case- Our court has followed this rule as to waiver of condition precedent by an insurance company .by- retention of the premium. See American Bankers’ Ins. Co. v. Thomas, 53 Okl. 11, 12, 154 P. 44; Massachusetts Bonding & Ins. Co. v. Vance, 74 Okl. 261, 180 P. 693, 15 A.L.R. 981.
I therefore concur in result.