Murphy v. Insurance Co.

19 Citing cases

  1. Gurley v. Life Casualty Insurance Company of Tenn.

    132 F. Supp. 289 (M.D.N.C. 1955)   Cited 1 times

    C.J. Stacy for the court said: "The case turns on whether there was a conditional delivery of the policy for purposes of inspection, as contended by the defendant's agent, or an absolute delivery upon acceptance of applicant's promise to pay balance of first premium out of the first government check thereafter received by him." The court cited Pender v. North State Life Insurance Co., 163 N.C. 98, 79 S.E. 293; Murphy v. Lafayette Mut. Life Ins. Co., 167 N.C. 334, 83 S.E. 461; Underwood v. State Life Ins. Co., 185 N.C. 538, 117 S.E. 790. The law in North Carolina is well settled that when insurance is applied for, and afterwards a policy is issued and delivered, it is based on the status of the insured at the time of the application, and the company assumes the risk after the date of the policy.

  2. Wilson v. Finance Co.

    79 S.E.2d 908 (N.C. 1954)   Cited 23 times

    2. The seller may waive his contractual right to the immediate cash payment of the purchase price in a sale for cash and permit the title to pass to the buyer before the payment of the purchase price is made by language or conduct manifesting an intention on his part to abandon or relinquish his contractual right rather than to insist upon it. 46 Am.Jur., Sales, Section 446; 77 C.J.S., Sales, Sections 232, 262; 67 C.J., Waiver, Section 6. See, also, in this connection: Manufacturing Co. v. Lefkowitz, 204 N.C. 449, 168 S.E. 517; Murphy v. Insurance Co., 167 N.C. 334, 83 S.E. 461. But he does not waive his contractual right by taking a check, which subsequently proves to be worthless, in payment for the property sold for cash. Johnson v. Iankovetz, 57 Or. 24, 110 P. 398, 29 L.R.A. (N.S.) 709.

  3. Stallings v. Insurance Co.

    53 S.E.2d 90 (N.C. 1949)   Cited 2 times

    In writing the opinion Chief Justice Stacy stated the Court's decision on the facts then appearing as follows: "The case turns on whether there was a conditional delivery of the policy for purposes of inspection, as contended by the defendant's agent, or an absolute delivery upon acceptance of the applicant's promise to pay balance of first premium out of the first government check thereafter received by him. Pender v. Ins. Co., 163 N.C. 98, 79 S.E. 293; Murphy v. Ins. Co., 167 N.C. 334, 83 S.E. 461; Underwood v. Ins. Co., 185 N.C. 538, 117 S.E. 790. As the evidence is conflicting on this central issue it should have been submitted to the jury for determination."

  4. Stallings v. Insurance Co.

    50 S.E.2d 292 (N.C. 1948)   Cited 3 times

    The case turns on whether there was a conditional delivery of the policy for purposes of inspection, as contended by the defendant's agent, or an absolute delivery upon acceptance of the applicant's promise to pay balance of first premium out of the first government check thereafter received by him. Pender v. Ins. Co., 163 N.C. 98, 79 S.E. 293; Murphy v. Ins. Co., 167 N.C. 334, 83 S.E. 461; Underwood v. Ins. Co., 185 N.C. 538, 117 S.E. 790. As the evidence is conflicting on this central issue it should have been submitted to the jury for determination. There was error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff.

  5. Paramore v. Insurance Association

    207 N.C. 300 (N.C. 1934)   Cited 8 times

    '" Grubbs v. Insurance Co., 108 N.C. 472; Perry v. Ins. Co., 132 N.C. 283; Murphy v. Ins. Co., 167 N.C. 334; Sellers v. Insurance Co., 205 N.C. 355.

  6. Hutson v. Insurance Co.

    173 S.E. 347 (N.C. 1934)   Cited 1 times

    The action is brought to reinstate the policy that had been canceled by defendant. In Murphy v. Ins. Co., 167 N.C. 334 (336), quoting numerous authorities, it is said: "It is also held by well considered cases on the subject here and elsewhere that this provision as to forfeiture, being inserted for the benefit of the company, may be waived by it, and such a waiver will be considered established and a forfeiture prevented whenever it is shown, as indicated, that there has been a valid agreement to postpone payment or that the company has so far recognized an agreement to that effect or otherwise acted in reference to the matter as to induce the policyholder, in the exercise of reasonable business prudence, to believe that prompt payment is not excepted and that the forfeiture on that account will not be insisted on." This is well settled and salutary law, but the plaintiff, being sui juris, signed the application for reinstatement and made certain representations as to his being in sound health — which was untrue — cashed the check and waited over three years, from 14 May, 1929, before bringing this

  7. Sellers v. Insurance Co.

    171 S.E. 328 (N.C. 1933)   Cited 6 times

    It is conceded that the policy in suit lapsed on 12 July, 1932, for nonpayment of balance of the 12 May quarterly premium, unless strict compliance was waived by mailing notice of the next regular quarterly premium due 12 August, 1932, in accordance with the provisions of C. S., 6465. As tending to support her claim of waiver, the plaintiff relies upon Murphy v. Ins. Co., 167 N.C. 334, 83 S.E. 461, and Moore v. Assurance Corp., 173 N.C. 532, 92 S.E. 362, but these authorities are not accordant with plaintiff's position. Had the notice been a demand for the payment of the extended balance due on the 12 May premium, similar to the demand in the Murphy case, quite a different situation would have been presented. The doctrine of waiver, of course, is well established ( Ins. Co. v. Eggleston, 96 U.S. 572), but it is also uniformly held that a note given in extension of payment, in whole or in part, of a premium due on a life insurance policy, which provides for forfeiture of the policy in case the note is not paid at maturity, or that the contract of insurance shall cease and determine upon default in payment of the note according to its tenor, such provision thereupon becomes, for the time being at least, the measuring stick for determining the rights of the parties, and avoids the policy, or contract of insurance, if said note is not paid at maturity.

  8. Arrington v. Insurance Co.

    137 S.E. 137 (N.C. 1927)   Cited 5 times

    " In Murphy v. Insurance Co., 167 N.C. 334, Hoke, J., says: "It is also held by well considered cases on the subject here and elsewhere that this provision as to forfeiture, being inserted for the benefit of the company, may be waived by it, and such a waiver will be considered established and a forfeiture prevented whenever it is shown, as indicated, that there has been a valid agreement to postpone payment or that the company has so far recognized an agreement to that effect or otherwise acted in reference to the matter as to induce the policy-holder, in the exercise of reasonable business prudence, to believe that prompt payment is not expected, and that the forfeiture on that account will not be insisted upon." A statement of the principle applicable in this case in the following words was approved by this Court in Paul v. Insurance Co., 183 N.C. 159:

  9. Hayworth v. Insurance Co.

    130 S.E. 612 (N.C. 1925)   Cited 28 times
    In Hayworth v. Insurance Co., 190 N.C. 757, 130 S.E. 612, it is said: "When a note is given for the payment of the premium on a life insurance policy and the note and the policy contain a stipulation that, upon the failure to pay the note at maturity, the policy shall cease and determine, then a failure to pay such premium note renders the policy void."

    However, in addition to the authorities cited in that opinion, there are other decisions from this State fully supporting the conclusions therein reached. When a note is given for the payment of the premium in a life insurance policy and the note and the policy contain a stipulation that, upon the failure to pay the note at maturity, the policy shall cease and determine, then a failure so to pay such premium note renders the policy void. Ferebee v. Ins. Co., 68 N.C. 11; Sexton v. Ins. Co., 157 N.C. 142; Sexton v. Ins. Co., 160 N.C. 597; Murphy v. Ins. Co., 167 N.C. 334, 336; Perry v. Ins. Co., 150 N.C. 145; McCraw v. Ins. Co., 78 N.C. 149; Underwood v. Ins. Co., 177 N.C. 327, 334. It is, also, further established in this jurisdiction that, "in the absence of an agreement to the contrary the delivery of a check by the debtor to the creditor, and the acceptance by the creditor of the check, is not payment of the indebtedness until the check has been paid."

  10. Bankers Reserve Life Co. v. Rice

    99 Okla. 184 (Okla. 1924)   Cited 23 times
    In Rice, we said that the condition urged by the insurance company for cancellation of the insurance policy must be found in the contract of insurance rather than in a separate promissory note given to secure payment of premiums on the policy.

    This case should also be distinguished from cases involving notes given in payment of the first premium. If the policy provides it shall not become effective until the first premium is paid the payment of the note is deemed a condition precedent. Arnold v. Empire Mutual Annuity and Life Ins. Co. (Ga.) 60 S.E. 476. But in the absence of fraud or mistake, the delivery of a contract of insurance absolute and unconditional is a waiver of the stipulation for prior or contemporaneous payment of the first premium. Kendrick v. Ins. Co., 124 N.C. 315, 32 S.E. 728, 70 Am. St. Rep. 592; Murphy v. Lafayette Mutual Life Ins. Co. (N. C.) 83 S.E. 461. The assurer may waive the cash payment and accept a promissory note in payment of the premium.