Heim v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Citations

• 7 Daly 536

Syllabus

<p>Where the plaintiff, being in arrears for premiums due on his policy of insurance with the defendant company, surrendered his policy and received a “ paid-up policy,” and at the same time gave an interest-bearing note for the past due and unpaid premiums on his old policy, which note was made a lien upon the paid-up policy, and it was also made a condition of the contract for the surrender of the old and the issuing of the new policy that if the interest or any part of the principal of his note was not paid when due, that then the policy should become void without notice,—Held, that the plaintiff was not entitled to notice of the time when the interest on the note fell due (even though it was the continuous practice of the company to give notice in such cases), and that his failure to pay the interest when due worked a forfeiture of the policy, against which a court of equity would not give relief.</p> <p>Held, further, that the fact that the plaintiff supposed that the policy, being called a “ paid-up policy,” required no further payments to keep it in force, was no ground for relieving him, no fraud or mutual mistake being shown.</p>