Court Opinion

ID: 9829322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 19:12:13.72591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:42:59.869977
License: Public Domain

On Motion for Rehearing.
The statement in our original opinion that the letter written by defendant’s Group Department to its agent, -Polhemus, instructing him to deliver the policy enclosed therewith to the insured, contained the statement that “it will be in force from the date it is delivered to and accepted by the applicant,” was an error. The letter did not embody that statement, but, as was shown without controversy, that statement was embodied in a slip which was delivered to the insured by Polhemus, along with the policy, and accepted by the insured at the same time. Hence that stipulation had the same force and effect as if it had been included in the letter of instruction to Polhemus authorizing him to deliver the policy.
As shown in the fourth quoted paragraph of the policy, the term “first policy year” is employed. And in the application for the policy, which is expressly made a part of the contract of insurance, it is provided that the policy would not become effective until its delivery and first premium paid to and accepted by the company. The further provision, “but when delivered and paid for, the policy shall relate back to its date, and the first policy year shall begin with that date” (italics ours), manifestly refers to delivery of the policy subsequently to its date; but that *1062provision and the stipulation immediately preceding it, in connection with the defendant’s letter to Polhemus, show clearly that the parties intended the contract to become effective on September 14, 1933, when it was delivered and first premium paid by defendant’s acceptance of assignment of wages of the insured as payment of the premiums for the first and subsequent months, rather than on the subsequent date of October 15, 1933. To say the least, the contract may reasonably be construed as evidencing an intention of the parties that the one-year suicide period should begin with the date when the contract became effective rather than on the subsequent date of October 15, 1933, as insisted by appellant, and that construction should be indulged in favor of the insured rather than the strict construction invoked by appellant.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.