Court Opinion

ID: 9849050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:33:43.384572+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:58.446986
License: Public Domain

Felton, Chief Judge,
dissenting. The pertinent provisions in the policy in the instant case are: that the death must occur between the ages of ten and 60, “and while the policy is maintained in full force and effect during the premium paying period.”
The pertinent provisions in the Hubach case, supra, are: that *874death must occur before the age of 60 and “ (c) before a default in any 'premium, and (a) within the premium paying period.”
As Judge Frankum stated, the majority opinion obliterates the words “during the premium paying period.” This they should not do. The words in the instant policy simply say in one “unlettered” expression what the policy in the Hubach case says in the “lettered” provisions (a) and (c). The effect of the majority opinion is that the expression in- the instant policy “and while the policy is maintained in full force and effect during the premium paying period” means only that the policy must not be in default. It does mean that; but it also means more. It means what it says, that death must occur during the ten-year premium paying period. The lettering of the provisions in the Hubach case has no virtue. An unlettered rose smells just as sweet. The provision in the instant policy might have had some lettering done to it. For example, it could have been written “ (b) and while the policy is maintained in full force and effect (c) during the premium paying period.” I repeat, the provision in the instant policy- next -above quoted simply combines the conditions stated in the Hubach policy under the letters (a) and (c). The construction by the majority that the disputed section means only that the policy not be in default is considerably more strained than the dissenters’, it is respectfully submitted.
Here -we do not have a case where an infant is insured who receives no double indemnity benefit. Nor do we have the case of a single premium policy. Assuming that the company wrote such a policy we cannot assume that the double indemnity provision would not have provided that it was effective for ten years.
It should also be noted that the words “is maintained” are significant. During the first ten years of the policy it required the affirmative action by the insured to keep the policy in force—the payment of premiums. After ten years the policy was paid up and no active maintenance was required. It then maintained itself.