Vincent v. Pelican Mutual Life Insurance

Citations

• 70 Pa. Super. 1
• 1918 Pa. Super. LEXIS 154

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Life insurance — Ambiguous terms in policy — Death benefits.</p> <p>A policy of life insurance stated on its face that it entitled the insured, or the beneficiary to “one of the benefits or privileges mentioned hereon,” subject to the terms and conditions on the back, and that those benefits and privileges include maximum death' benefits of $100. The policy had in the upper right-hand corner of the front page within a scroll the words “Class IA5 Grade C,” and on the back page a list of “increasing benefits,” designated as Grade O, and a provision, numbered five and called “Maximum death,” which provided, among other things, that it was applicable if the policy was issued with medical examination, or if, after examination the assured had been classed as “Sub-standard,” in which case the benefits were to increase yearly, and one-fifth of the maximum amount allowed on the front page was payable for each year the policy was in force. The insured died within one year from the date of the policy. Held, that the beneficiary after the death of the insured was entitled to recover the sum of $100 as death benefits, unless no medical examination was made, or the insured was classed as sub-standard.</p> <p>If it had been the intention of the defendant company to covenant that the beneficiary should not become entitled to anything in case the assured died within one year and should not become entitled to the $100 death benefits until the policy had been in force and premiums paid for the full period of five years, it ought to have used language in its policy which -clearly indicated that intention.</p>