Marshall v. Farmers & Bankers Life Insurance
Citations
- 98 Kan. 502
- 159 P. 17
- 1916 Kan. LEXIS 115
Syllabus
<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Insurance — Premium Note — Only Extension of Time For Payment of Premium — Default in Payment — Policy Avoided. Where a promissory note is taken for a premium on a life insurance policy, and the insurance policy provides that the note is not to be considered as a payment of the premium but only an extension of time for payment and that a failure to pay the note at maturity shall forfeit the policy, a default in payment of the note relieves the insurance company from payment of the policy.</p> <p>2. Same — Premium Note — Payable to Agent — Delivered to Company- — • Property of Company Ab Initio — Default -in Payment — Policy Avoided. Where a promissory note is taken for a premium on a life-insurance policy, payable to the agent of the insurance company, and is received by him as agent for the company and delivered by him to the company, the insurance company is the owner of the note from the inception of the transaction, and if the note is not paid to the company at maturity, the forfeiture clause in the policy for nonpayment of the premium note will protect the insurance company.</p> <p>3. Same — Premium Note — Payable to Agent — Agent Conditionally Charged with Company’s ¡Share of Premium — Note Property of Company Ab Initio — Default in Payment — Policy Avoided. Where a premium note is taken by the agent of an insurance company in his capacity as agent and the note is delivered to the company, and by an arrangement between the agent and the company he is conditionally charged with the company’s share of the premium, the charge to be remitted if the note is not paid, the premium note belongs to the insurance company from the inception of the transaction, notwithstanding that it is payable to the agent; and where the policy issued to the maker of the note provides that the obligation of the policy shall be void unless the note is paid at maturity, a failure of the assured to pay the premium note avoids the policy.</p> <p>4. Same —
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- recognizing that proximate cause requires that the reasonably prudent person would have foreseen or anticipated the plaintiffs harm as a result of the defendant’s negligence
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Dawson
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.