Court Opinion

ID: 9829002
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 18:54:47.906719+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:56.269415
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
Appellee in his motion for rehearing complains that we did not discuss in the original opinion the matter of his alleged right to interest, penalty and attorney’s fee allowed him by the judgment of the trial court.
It is our view that the twelve percent penalty and attorney’s fee allowed by the statute (Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 4736) for failure of certain insurance companies to pay claims within thirty days aft-' er demand has no application to the character of claim asserted in this suit. It will be noted that the penalty and attorney’s fee are allowed “in all cases where a loss occurs”. The statute is penal in nature and must be strictly construed. Washington Fidelity National Insurance Company v. Williams, Tex.Com.App., 49 S.W.2d 1093. The policy involved here is .á life insurance policy and the “loss” insured against was death. The claim here sued on is not for loss but for the cash surrender value which the insured, by the terms of the policy, had the-right to claim in lieu of the life insurance provided by the policy. We deny ap-pellee’s claim for penalty and attorney’s fee for the reason that in our opinion it does not come within the provisions of the .statute.
The insurance company contends that it is not liable for interest for the reason that it had no right nor option to pay the surrender value of the policy to appellee until such time as he should make claim therefor and surrender the policy; -that it has stood ready at all times to pay, and has offered to pay, the amount which it owed the plaintiff and has been prevented from doing so because plaintiff demanded a larger sum than it owed.
It is our conclusion that when the plaintiff filed this suit he thereby made unconditional demand for payment of the cash surrender value of the policy, and that appellant in order to escape liability for statutory interest rested under the burden of making an actual tender into the registry-of the court of the amount due. It made-no such tender but has retained the money. We therefore hold that appellee is entitled to interest on the $1,020.41 due him by appellant from and after the 27th day of May, 1938, the date this suit was filed. Accordingly the judgment heretofore entered by-us will be reformed so as to allow appel-lee the statutory six percent (6%) interest.