Knight v. Pilot Life Insurance

Stacy, O. J. Was tiere a duplication of payment of tie installment due 25 November, 1933? Tie question is answered in tie negative by defendant’s cashier, Miss Raciel Mullen, whom plaintiff called as a witness. She says: “Tie paper handed me is a cheek for $8.10 to cover tie October 25, 1933, quarterly-monthly premium. It is dated December 1, 1933. . . . Tie receipt, marked ‘P. Ex. 17,’ for October, 1933, was tie one given in exchange for that check.” Tiere was no showing by tie plaintiff that tie October installment was paid in any manner other than by tiis check dated 1 December. Tie confusion seems to iave arisen from tie fact that the October payment was made after the due date of tie November payment. It is conceded that plaintiff’s husband paid tie November installment in December out of a loan on tie policy. As we understand tie record, tie evidence on tie alleged duplication of payment is not sufficient to warrant a finding in plaintiff’s favor. It is provided in tie rider, attached to tie policy at tie instance of tie insured and for his convenience, that tie nonpayment of any installment when due, or within tie period of grace thereafter, automatically voids tie policy. Such provision is universally upheld. Clifton v. Ins. Co., 168 N. C., 499, 84 S. E., 817; Melvin v. Ins. Co., 150 N. C., 398, 64 S. E., 180; Hayworth v. Ins. Co., 190 N. C., 757, 130 S. E., 612. Speaking to a similar situation in Hay v. Association, 143 N. C., 256, 55 S. E., 623, Clark, C. J., delivering tie opinion of tie Court, very pertinently said: “It is always sad when one who has made payments on his policy deprives his family of expected protection by failure to pay at a critical time. But insurance is a business proposition, and no company could survive if tie insured could default while in good health, but retain a right to pay up when impaired health gives warning. It is a warning of which tie company also has tie right to take notice when asked to waive a forfeiture. It is tie insured’s own fault when he does not make a payment as he contracted.” A careful perusal of tie record leaves us with tie impression that tie demurrer to tie evidence should iave been sustained. Reversed.