MEAGHER v BENEFIT TR LIFE INS CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12184 I N THE SUPREME COURT O T E STATE O M N A A F H F OTN 1972 EDNA MEAGHER, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, BENEFIT TRUST LIFE INSURANCE COMPAMI, a corporation, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable S i d G. Stewart, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : Knight, Dahood, Mackay and McLean, Anaconda, Montana. David M. McLean argued, Anaconda, Montana. For Respondent: M. K. Daniels argued, Deer Lodge, Montana. Submitted : Decided : September 19, 1972 CJCT 3 ii j9:r2 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I , Waswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court, I n an a c t i o n by t h e b e n e f i c i a r y of a group h e a l t h and a c c i d e n t p o l i c y a g a i n s t t h e i n s u r e r t o c o l l e c t a $5,000 d e a t h b e n e f i t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of Powell County, t h e Hon. S i d G. Stewart, d i s t r i c t judge, g r a n t e d a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t i n favor of t h e b e n e f i c i a r y and e n t e r e d judgment thereon. From t h e judgment and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e i n s u r e r ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l , t h e i n s u r e r a p p e a l s . P l a i n t i f f - r e s p o n d e n t i s Edna Meagher, t h e b e n e f i c i a r y named i n t h e p o l i c y i s s u e d by d e f e n d a n t - a p p e l l a n t , B e n e f i t T r u s t L i f e Insurance Company. The p o l i c y provided f o r a d e a t h b e n e f i t i n t h e amount of $5,000. The i n s u r e d , Kenneth V, Wheeler, s u f f e r e d a gunshot wound on March 18, 1969 and d i e d on A p r i l 2 , 1969. The u n d e r l y i n g q u e s t i o n on a p p e a l i s whether t h e p o l i c y was i n e f f e c t on t h e d a t e of Wheeler's death. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h a t i t was, g r a n t i n g a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r y a t t h e conclusion of a l l t h e evidence a t t h e j u r y t r i a l . W e agree. Wheeler was an employee of t h e Milwaukee r a i l r o a d from February 1968 t o October 5 , 1968, a t which time he submitted h i s v o l u n t a r y r e s i g n a t i o n from t h i s employment. A t a l l times m a t e r i a l t o t h i s a c t i o n , t h e r a i l r o a d had a c o n t r a c t w i t h B e n e f i t t o provide a group i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t o t h e r a i l r o a d ' s employees. The monthly premium was $8.40 which t h e r a i l r o a d deducted from t h e employee's pay and r e m i t t e d t o B e n e f i t . The deduction covered t h e premium f o r t h e following month. The p o l i c y c o n t a i n e d t h e following p r o v i s i o n s , among o t h e r s , pertinent t o t h i s action: he coverage on an I n s u r e d s h a l l a u t o m a t i c a l l y t e r m i n a t e a t t h e e a r l i e s t of t h e following d a t e s : ( a ) a t t h e beginning of t h e month f o r which I n s u r e d f a i l s t o make, when due, any r e q u i r e d c o n t r i b u t i o n ( e ) a t t h e end towards t h e payment of premium of t h e month i n which h i s employment w i t h t h e Employer t e r m i n a t e s . II *** The p o l i c y a l s o containea t h e following conversion p r i v i l e g e i n t h e event of termination o E t h e i n s u r e d ' s employment with t h e railroad : It I f employment with t h e Employer i s terminated and t h e Insured t a k e s up f u l l time employment elsewhere, the Insured s h a l l be e n t i t l e d , s u b j e c t t o t h e Company's r e g u l a r underwriting r u l e s , t o convert h i s insurance t o an i n d i v i d u a l policy of insurance, provided w r i t t e n a p p l i c a t i o n and t h e f i r s t premium payment a r e made t o t h e Company w i t h i n t h i r t y - o n e days from t h e d a t e of terminat i o n of employment. *I1 ** Premiums were deducted from Wheeler's pay f o r t h e months of March 1968 through October 1968, during which time he was c a r r i e d on t h e "collected l i s t " compiled by t h e r a i l r o a d and furnished t o Benefit. For t h e months of November and December 1968 and January 1969, Wheeler was c a r r i e d on t h e l'uncollected l i s t " furnished by t h e r a i l r o a d t o Benefit. I n February 1969, t h e r a i l r o a d s e n t Wheeler a check r e p r e s e n t i n g compensation f o r h i s unused vacation time l e s s a deduction of $16,80 f o r two months insurance premiums. Following Wheeler's death on A p r i l 2 , 1969, Benefit s e n t Wheeler a n o t i c e a f premium due i n t h e amount of $8.40. Qn J u l y 18, 1969, some t h r e e and one-half months a f t e r Wheeler's death, Benefit forwarded a check t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r y i n t h e amount of $25.20, covering a refund of premiums f o r t h e months of October 1968 and February and March 1969, P r i o r t o t r i a l t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied B e n e f i t ' s motion f o r summary judgment. Jury t r i a l was had on J u l y 1, 1971, At t h e conclusion of a l l t h e evidence, Judge Stewart granted a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t t o t h e b e n e f i c i a r y i n the f a c e amount of t h e policy, Judgment was entered thereon on J u l y 8, 1971. Benefit moved f o r a new t r i a l which was denied on August 26, 1971. Benefit now appeab from t h e judgment. A s h e r e t o f o r e i n d i c a t e d , the underlying i s s u e upon appeal i s whether t h e l i f e insurance p o l i c y was i n e f f e c t on t h e d a t e of Wheeler's death, Benefit contends t h a t t h e p o l i c y had terminated p r i o r t o Wheeler's death under t h e express policy terms h e r e t o f o r e quoted providing f o r automatic termination i n t h e event of (1) nonpayment of premium, or (2) termination of employment with the railroad. Specifically Benefit argues that no premiums were paid for the months of November, December, 1968 and January 1969, automatically terminating the policy; that the railroad's deduction of premiums in February 1969 from unused vacation pay did not work a reinstatement of the policy; and that under no view of the evidence was any premium paid for the month of April 1969, when Wheeler's death occurred. Benefit further avers that in any event Wheeler terminated his employment with the railroad in October 1968, automatically terminating his policy at the end of that month and that payment for unused vacation time in February 1969 did not constitute further employment by the railroad and reinstate his policy. We observe at the outset that ~enefit's contentions are bottomed on policy provisions relating to automatic termination without notice. We need not cornern ourselves with the status of the policy under these provisions prior to April 2, 1969, the date of Wheeler's death, as the status of the policy on that date is controlling. The uncontradicted evidence at the trial establishes that subsequent to Wheeler's death a notice of premium due directed to Wheeler was received at his address in Deer Lodge, The notice of premium due was admitted in evidence at the trial and this exhibit showed a net amount due of $8.40, representing the premium for the period commencing April 11, 1969, The face of the exhibit shows symbols indicating, at least by inference, a railroad policy noncancellable to April 10, 1969. The due date for the $8.40 premium covering the period commencing April 11, 1969, as shown on the notice was April 1, 1969, This evidence constitutes an admission by the insurer that the policy was paid up and noncancellable on April 2, 1969, the date of Wheeler's death, and the insurer is bound thereby, Accordingly, the directed verdict f o r p l a i n t i f f b e n e f i c i a r y i n t h e f a c e amount of t h e death b e n e f i t contained i n t h e policy i s c o r r e c t . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed. Associate J u s t i c e C h F Justice % '
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
