Deese v. Travellers Insurance ( 1933 )

CONNOR, J.

Two questions are involved in the issue submitted to the jury at the trial of this action. Both these questions were answered in the affirmative. They are:

I. Was the insured, Oscar J. Deese, an employee of the Carolina Nash Company at the date of his death, to wit: 6 October, 1930?

2. If so, was group life policy G-6271, issued by the defendant to the Carolina Nash Company, and covering the employees of said company, who had accepted the insurance provided by said policy, in force and effect as to Oscar J. Deese, at the date of his death, to' wit: 6 October, 1930?

By its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, at the close of all the evidence, the defendant presented to the trial court its contention’that there was no evidence from which the jury could answer either of the questions involved in the issue in the affirmative, and on its appeal to this Court the defendant by its assignment of error based on its exception to the refusal of the trial court to allow its motion for judgment as of nonsuit, presents its contention that the judgment should be reversed and tbe action dismissed, for tbat there was no evidence at tbe trial to support tbe affirmative answer to tbe issue, on wbicb tbe judgment was rendered.

It is conceded tbat Oscar J. Deese was an employee of tbe Carolina Nasb Company at tbe date of tbe issuance of group life policy G-6271, to wit: 24 September, 1929, and tbat be continued as sucb employee until some time in September, 1930. There was evidence tending to show tbat from about 15 September, 1930, when a receiver was appointed for tbe Carolina Nasb Company, until 6 October, 1930, when be died, Osear J. Deese continued to do tbe same work, at tbe same place, as be bad done prior to tbe appointment of tbe receiver. There was no evidence tbat be was discharged from or tbat be left tbe employment of tbe Carolina Nasb Company at any time prior to bis death. Tbe bookkeeping arrangement by wbicb be was carried on tbe payroll of tbe Burwell-Harris Company, in tbe absence of any evidence tending to show tbat be knew or consented to sucb arrangement, was not sufficient to show as a matter of law tbat be bad ceased to be an employee of Carolina Nasb Company, and bad become an employee of Burwell-Harris Company. He received bis wages for work done after tbe appointment of tbe receiver, on 4 October, 1930, from a bookkeeper who deducted from bis wages the amount due Carolina Nasb Company on account of insurance. There was ample evidence to support an affirmative answer to tbe first question involved in tbe issue.

Group Life Policy G-6271 was issued by tbe defendant on 24 September, 1929. Tbe policy became effective at said date, and continued in forcé for a term of one year. This term expired on 24 September, 1930. It was provided, however, in tbe policy tbat it might be renewed from year to year, and a grace period of thirty-one days, during wbicb the policy should remain in full force, would be allowed for tbe payment of any renewal premium.

There was no evidence tending to show tbat tbe Carolina Nasb Company exercised its option, either before or after 24 September, 1930, to renew tbe policy -for another year. There was evidence, however, tending to show that on 4 October, 1930, tbe Carolina Nasb Company deducted from tbe wages of Oscar J. Deese, earned after 24 September, 1930, the sum which be bad agreed to pay for bis insurance under tbe group life policy. No notice bad been given to Oscar J. Deese by tbe Carolina Nash Company, bis employer, or by tbe defendant, bis insurer, tbat tbe group life policy bad not been renewed. In tbe absence of sucb notice, upon his payment to his employer, in accordance with tbe provisions of the policy, of tbe sum which be bad agreed with both bis employer and tbe defendant to pay for bis insurance, tbe policy was in force, at least as to him, at the date of his death. The defendant knew when it issued the certificate to Oscar J. Deese, that the said Oscar J. Deese had agreed to pay to the Carolina Nash Company the sums required to keep the policy in force as to him. Its contention that the policy was not in force at the date of his death, because the Carolina Nash Company had failed to renew the policy, cannot and ought not to be sustained, where there was evidence tending to show that in reliance upon the provisions of the policy, the insured employee continued to pay the sum which he had agreed to pay after the policy had expired, but within the grace period of thirty-one days allowed by the policy for the payment of the renewal premium. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.