Court Opinion

ID: 9443318
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 19:17:31.566076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:26.908623
License: Public Domain

PICKETT, Circuit Judge
(dissenting).
The policy in this case when issued provided that the premium should be paid annually. For the first two years the annual premium was $259.80. Beginning the third year it was to increase to $303.90. Prior to the time that the second annual premium was due, the insured advised the company that he desired to pay the premiums on a monthly basis. He was advised that this could be done and executed the regular company form requesting such change. It read as follows:
*660“Change in Method of Premium Pay- ■ ments .to the Mutual Life Insur- ■ anee Company of New York:
“The undersigned requests the Company to change the method of payment of premiums on Contract No. 6008695 on the life of Joseph Weigel to the following : monthly annual premiums which will fall due on the 20th day of each month in each year commencing ' with the' premium due on Sept. 20, 1946 Each monthly annual premium due prior to the third anniversary date shall be $23.00 and each monthly premium due on and after such anniversary date shall be $26.90. :
“Dated at Ellis, State of Kas. This 23 day of Oct. 1946.
“Signature of Assignee) Applicant or Beneficiary (if paying premium)
“Joseph Weigel,
“Signature of Insured-Annuitant.” ‘
The right to change the method of paying premiums is recognized by substantially all insurance companies. When that change is made it becomes part of the contract and the insured is bound to pay it in the same manner as though it had been in the original policy. The policy here provided that “a grace period of thirty-one days will be granted for the payment of each premium after the first, during which days of grace this policy will continue in for.ee. If any premium is not paid before the end of the days of grace, this policy shall immediately terminate and have no value, and all premiums previously paid shall belong to the company, except as provided for in ‘ this policy.” The premium due oh March 20, 1947, was not paid within the thirty-one days grace. If the premium payments were on an annual 'basis the policy could not be forfeited within six months without written notice. This is not a requirement if the premium was on a monthly basis. G.S.Kan.1949, Sec. 40-410. I do not think the record supports the finding of the trial court that the subsequent arrangement for monthly payments was merely an extension agreement for the payment of the,annual premium and notice of forfeiture was necessary¡ The executed request for change provides a method for payment throughout the life of the policy unless, of course, it should be changed by another application which the insured was advised he might do. The .provision for change to monthly payments is clear and unambiguous and a strained construction should not be placed upon it. “Insurance companies can only survive by the prompt payment of premiums,” Wolford v. National Life Ins. Co., 114 Kan. 411, 219 P. 263, 264, 32 A.L.R. 1248; Minnesota Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Cost, 10 Cir., 72 F.2d 519.
I would reverse the judgment.