Richardson v. Security Mutual Life Insurance , 175 N.C. 714 ( 1918 )

Pee Cueiam :

Tbe policy of insurance on breach of wbicb the action is predicated contained, among others, the following stipulations:

“1. To continue this policy in force a further advance payment of $7.09 cents each, on or before, the first day of February, May, August, and November in every year, and payment of the mortuary assessments at the rate of $1.67 for each assessment when the same shall be called for to pay the policies of deceased members shall be made to the association at its home office.

“2. From each advance payment received after the primary policy year, there shall be deposited by the association to the credit of the Guarantee Surplus Fund $5.19. The mortuary assessments shall provide such sums as may be necessary to pay current death claims on the basis of the actuaries’ table of mortality or as the mortality experience of the association may require.

“3. When, however, the above payments in any one year after primary policy year, aggregate the sum fixed by the table printed elsewhere on this policy based on the age at entry, no further assessments shall be made on assured for that year until the guarantee surplus fund standing to the credit of the policy shall be exhausted in payment thereof.”

It was admitted on the trial that the guarantee surplus fund, standing to the credit of the policyholders, was exhausted prior to 6 December, 1899, when the present defendant assumed the obligation of these policies, and at that time there were valid death claims to the amount of $10,000 which defendant had no means of paying except by assessment on the members, but that these facts were not known to plaintiff till this action was instituted.

It was further admitted on the hearing that the defendant, “since it reinsured the old Bankers’ Guarantee Fund Life Association, collected its premiums and mortuary assessments on the basis of the actuaries’ tables of mortality,” including the premiums collected from plaintiff.

From the provisions in the contract itself and the admitted facts relevant to the controversy, it appears that the basis of assessment pursued by the present defendant is in accord with the express stipulations of the agreement contained in the policy, and we concur in his Honor’s view that notwithstanding the verdict, the breach of contract alleged by plaintiff has not been established and the judgment in defendant’s favor should be affirmed.

No error.