Home Life Insurance v. Pierce
Citations
- 75 Ill. 426
Syllabus
<p>1. Forfeitures—not favored. Courts of justice do not regard forfeitures with, favor, and they are never enforced unless the evidence is clear that such was the intention.</p> <p>2. Same — where the course of dealing has led pa/rty to believe a forfeiture would not be exacted. If the practice of an insurance company and its course of dealings with the insured, and others, known to the insured, have been such as to induce a belief that so much of the contract as provides for a forfeiture in a certain event, will not be insisted on, the company will not be allowed to set up such forfeiture as against one in whom their conduct has induced such belief.</p> <p>3. Insurance — acts of company leading policy-holder to believe forfeiture would not be insisted on. Where a policy of insurance provided for forfeiture for non-payment of premiums when due, and the company received payment of the same after due, without objection, and sent out letters with the following words printed in prominent letters: “ Every policy is non-forfeiting,” so as to lead the assured to believe that no forfeiture would be exacted, it was held that these facts were sufficient to prevent the company from insisting upon a forfeiture because a subsequent premium was not promptly paid when due.</p> <p>4. Same — when notice is required before declan'ing a forfeiture. Where, by the terms of a policy of insurance on the life of a party, he was required to pay one-half of the annual premium in cash, and give a note for the other half, together with the amount unpaid of previous notes, with the interest thereon, less his dividend or share of-the profits, which was to be deducted from the sum for which he was to execute his note, it was held that the company was bound to give the party notice of the amount for which his note was required, and the amount to be paid in money, before it could insist upon a forfeiture of the policy for a failure to give the note in renewal and make payment.</p> <p>5. Forfeiture—
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- plaintiff willfully assaulted but sustained no physical injury; fright and mental suffering proper elements of damages
- the defendant's intent to assault a woman and her children could be found in the defendant's actions of threatening to shoot them and of pouring kerosene and attempting to light a match in furtherance of the defendant's threat to burn down the house
- the defendant's intent to assault a woman and her children could be found in the defendant's actions of threatening to shoot them and of pouring kerosene and attempting to light a match in furtherance of the defendant's threat to burn down the house
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Craig
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.