Court Opinion

ID: 9732273
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:13:47.205046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:25.766370
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully disagree with the result arrived at in the majority opinion. In this case the plaintiff acquired a life insurance policy, maturing in 30 years, at which time certain elections became available to her, one being the right to cash it in for a sum of money to be determined as specified in the policy. After receipt of the policy and the payment of premium, a letter was written to the policyholder by a general agent of the defendant in regard to the options available at the end of the 30-year period. In this letter the agent erroneously stated that a larger cash sum would be available to the policyholder at the end of the 30-year period than the policy provided for.' Plaintiff says that she relied upon this statement and no doubt after receiving the agent’s interpretation, she did expect to collect the larger sum. It may be pointed out that it is not contended nor do the pleadings allege that there was any fraud or deceit connected with this transaction and the plaintiff was not *832wrongfully induced to change her position in any manner. In essence, plaintiff is contending that the letter of the general agent effected a change in or modification of the policy which she already held. The courts uniformly hold that in the absence of facts showing an estoppel, a consideration is necessary for the valid modification of the coverage provisions of an insurance policy, whether the effect of the modification is to extend or limit the risks against which the insurance affords protection. See, 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, § 354, p. 403; Annotation, 52 A. L. R. 2d 826. In line with this principle, it was held in Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn. v. Cohen, 194 F. 2d 232 (1952), that an insurance company, in regard to a policy maturing in 20 years, could not limit its liability for benefits unless it also reduced its premium. The present case is not one where a representation was wrongfully made to induce plaintiff to buy or reinstate a policy. It falls within the purview of the proposition announced in Hagelin v. Commonwealth Life Ins. Co., 106 Neb. 187, 183 N. W. 103: “Where there is no specific provision in a policy of life insurance for forfeiture, either whole or partial, on a breach of a condition by the assured, the court will not write one in; nor can the insurer afterwards impose new conditions creating a forfeiture without the consent of the assured, and without a new consideration.”
In this case the plaintiff acquired a policy of insurance maturing in 30 years under the terms of which she agreed to pay a certain annual premium. Her responsibilities and liabilities under this policy have never changed from the date of its inception. She was never called upon to pay any sum other than that required under the original policy and she has never changed her position in any respect since she first acquired the policy. The premium was not increased after she received the agent’s letter which she now claims increases the benefits she is entitled to. Clearly, there was no consideration and the agent’s letter cannot be deemed a valid *833revision or modification of the original policy. Were we to adopt such a theory, then the insurance company could unilaterally cut down the coverage in any policy, at any time, without decreasing the premium or giving other valid consideration therefor.
In my judgment, this case should be affirmed.
Carter, J., joins in this dissent.