Chamberlain v. Home Security Life Insurance

Connor, J. Two causes of action are alleged in tbe complaint in this action. On tbe first cause of action, tbe plaintiff seeks to recover damages, both actual and punitive, for tbe wrongful, wilful, wanton and malicious cancellation of tbe policies of insurance on bis life issued to him by tbe defendant. On tbe second cause of action, be seeks to recover tbe amount of bis claim for a disability resulting from an injury to bis band, which was covered by one of said policies. Tbe second *626 cause of action was apparently abandoned by the plaintiff at the trial. No issue was tendered by the plaintiff or submitted by the court, involving the amount, if any, which the plaintiff was entitled to recover of the defendant on his second cause of action. For that reason, the affirmative answer to the first issue need not be considered in deciding the questions involved in this appeal. In effect, the plaintiff suffered a nonsuit on his second cause of action. The first cause of action alleged in the complaint is founded on contract. It is alleged in the complaint that the defendant breached its contracts with the plaintiff, as evidenced by the three policies of insurance which were issued to the plaintiff by the defendant, by its wrongful, wilful, wanton and malicious cancellation of said policies. The facts alleged in the complaint are sufficient to constitute a single cause of action. The three policies of insurance were canceled by the defendant simultaneously. But one cause of action is alleged in the complaint as arising out of the cancellation of the policies. For purposes of jurisdiction, the fact that three policies of insurance, all issued by defendant to plaintiff, but at different dates, and for different amounts, were canceled, is immaterial. McGowan v. Ins. Co., 141 N. C., 361, 54 S. E., 287. As his damages accruing on his first cause of action, the plaintiff demands judgment that he recover of the defendant (1) the sum of $168.20, this being the amount which he had paid to the defendant as premiums on his policies prior to their cancellation; and (2) the sum of $500.00, this being the amount which he alleges he is entitled to recover as punitive damages. These sums constitute different elements of the damages which accrued from a single cause of action. See Thompson v. Express Co., 144 N. C., 389, 57 S. E., 18, and Hall v. Telegraph Co., 139 N. C., 369, 52 S. E., 50. In Braswell v. Ins. Co., 75 N. C., 8, which was an action to recover damages for the wrongful cancellation of a policy of insurance on the life of the plaintiff, it was held that where plaintiff elected to demand as his damages the amount paid by him as premiums on his policy, prior to its wrongful cancellation, he could recover such amount as money had and received by the defendant for his use. The judgment for such amount was affirmed. This principle, when invoked by the plaintiff in an action to recover damages for the wrongful cancellation of a policy of insurance, was approved in Garland v. Ins. Co., 179 N. C., 67, 101 S. E., 616. In that ease it was held, however, that in a proper case the plaintiff was entitled to recover the value of the policy at the time it was wrongfully canceled, or the amount which would enable him to procure another policy affording him the same protection as that which he had under the policy which was wrongfully canceled. *627 It cannot be held as a matter of law that on the facts alleged in the complaint in the instant case, the plaintiff was limited in his recovery for the cancellation of his policies to the amount paid by him as premiums on said policies, prior to their cancellation, and that his allegation that he was entitled to recover punitive damages was not in good faith. It has been uniformly held by this Court that in actions on contract, the amount demanded in good faith in the complaint is determinative of the jurisdiction of the action. Where such amount exceeds $200.00, the Superior Court has original jurisdiction. Martin v. Goode, 111 N. C., 288, 16 S. E., 232. There was no error in the refusal of the court to sustain the demurrer ore tenue to the complaint, on the ground that the Superior Court was without jurisdiction of this action. There was no error in the instruction of the court to the jury, both in the charge and after the conclusion of the charge, that if the jury should answer either of the first four issues in the affirmative, they should answer the 5th issue “$168.20”; but that if they should answer either of said issues in the negative, they should answer the 5th issue, “Nothing.” It does not appear that the defendant was prejudiced by this instruction. We find no error in the trial of the action. The judgment is affirmed. No error. Schekck, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.