Court Opinion

ID: 9831728
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:19:21.306644+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:37.450723
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
[4] A contention of the insurance company not specifically mentioned in the former opinion was its insistence that the happening of the contingency it had insured against —that is, Mr. Stubbs’ having survived the lapse of the 15-year period — did not involve a “loss” within the meaning of R. S. art. 4746. Our view upon this question is so well and succinctly stated in the brief of the appellee that the liberty of adopting this discussion of it is here taken:
“The judgment was not contrary to the law and evidence, and the litigation did involve a loss that is contemplated or defined by the statute invoking attorney’s fees and penalties against insurance companies. R. S. art. 4746. The statute provides that ‘in all cases where a *899loss occurs and the life insurance company, or accident insurance company, or life and accident, health and accident, or life, health and accident insurance company liable therefor shall fail to pay the same within thirty days after demand therefor, such company shall be liable to pay the holder of such policy, in addition to the amount of the loss, twelve per cent, damages and reasonable attorney’s fees.’
“If the company’s liability to pay the amount due under its policy does not constitute a loss within the meaning of the statute, it would not have been a loss in case of the death of the insured before the end of 15 years. It is uniformly held that endowment insurance is life insurance. 25 Gyc. 698; Briggs v. McCullough, 36 Cal. 542, and other cases cited in 25 Cyc. The amount of loss to be paid depends upon the duration of life.
“The statute does not mention an endowment policy, but does a life policy, which was evidently intended to include any form of insurance upon lives. The fact that it might mature in the lifetime of the insured does not render it any the less life insurance. The word ‘loss’ is often used in insurance policies as signifying the liability of the insurer.”
See, also, N. L. S. Ins. Co. v. Gomillion, 178 S. W. 1050, where the death of live stock was recovered for as being a loss within the purview of this article, and R. S. art. 4724, defining life, health, and accident insurance companies.
In a word, we conclude that, although the ■character of the statute be penal and its purpose punitory, it would neither be too liberal nor inconsistent with an effectuation ■of its objects to say that the word “loss” is therein used as a synonym of liability.
Unconvinced of error in the original disposition of the cause, the motions of both litigants for rehearing have been refused.