Spinks v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n

Citations

• 137 F. 169
• 1905 U.S. App. LEXIS 5215

Syllabus

<p>1. Insurance—Contract Limitations — Validity — Question or General Law—Federal Courts—State Decisions.</p> <p>Whether a provision in an insurance policy that no action shall be brought after the lapse of a year from’ the date of insured’s death is valid is one of general public policy, as to which federal courts will follow federal decisions, though in conflict with the decisions of the highest courts of the state.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—State laws as rules of decision in federal courts, see notes to Wilson v. Perrin, 11 O. C. A. 71; Hill v. Hite, 29 C. C. A. 553.]</p> <p>2. Same.</p> <p>A provision in an insurance policy that no action shall be brought after the lapse of one year from the date of insured’s death is valid.</p> <p>[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 28, Cent. Dig. Insurance, $ 1545.]</p> <p>8. Policies—Construction—Forfeiture.</p> <p>An insurance policy expressly provided that a failure to make any payment of dues for expenses or mortuary premiums, as provided, should render the contract null and void, but declared that when the policy had been in force for five years, and insured died before the expiration of ten years, within six months from the date of the maturity of dues unpaid, or within six months from the date of mortuary calls unpaid, the certificate should, nevertheless, be payable as though payment of such dues or mortuary premium had been made when due. Held, that such extension provision gave insured an extension of six months as to both annual dues and mortuary premiums, so that, if either was not paid within such extended period, the policy was forfeited.</p>