{
  "id": 5620549,
  "name": "Badeh F. Jabara, Appellant, v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jabara v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States",
  "decision_date": "1935-04-15",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 37,937",
  "first_page": "147",
  "last_page": "150",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "280 Ill. App. 147"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "71 S. W. (2d) 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 S. W. (2d) 1049",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 U. S. 489",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        5717592
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/284/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ill. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5152667
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/318/0350-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 315,
    "char_count": 5293,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.4943919221984587e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6636247904800627
    },
    "sha256": "43852070c9b553895513a4dbc36bf98116c63a9e47861694715bf37558818c87",
    "simhash": "1:f639ec5ed70de0ca",
    "word_count": 887
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:02:24.859509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Badeh F. Jabara, Appellant, v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff brought an action against the defendant insurance company on a policy of insurance, claiming that he was totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the policy, from April 1, 1928; that July 1, 1932, he made proof of such disability to defendant company; that for July, 1932, and for subsequent months defendant paid him $50 a month; that he was entitled to $50 a month for the 48 months prior to July, 1932, or a total of $2,400, with interest. The statement of claim, on motion of defendant, was stricken. Plaintiff elected to stand on his statement of claim, his suit was dismissed, and he appeals.\nThe only question is the construction of the insurance policy. Plaintiff contends that under a proper construction of it he was entitled to receive $50 a month from the time he became totally disabled, while defendant insurance company\u2019s position is that he was not entitled to $50 a month until he made proof of his disability to the company.\nThe pertinent provisions of the policy are: \u00a3<Ie the Insured Becomes Wholly and Permanently Disabled Before Age 60 the Society will waive subsequent premiums and pay to the Insured a Disability-Annuity of \u2014 Fifty Dollars \u2014 A Month subject to the terms and conditions contained on the third page hereof.\u201d On page 3 is the following: \u00a3\u00a3Total and Permanent Disability. (1) Disability Benefits before age 60 shall be effective upon receipt of due proof, before default in the payment of premium, that the Insured became totally and permanently disabled by bodily injury or disease after this policy became effective and before its anniversary upon which the Insured\u2019s age at nearest birthday is 60 years, in which event the Society will grant the following benefits:\u2014\n\u201c (a) Waive Payment of All Premiums payable upon this policy falling due after the receipt of such proof and during the continuance of such total and permanent Disability; and\n\u201c(b) Pay to the Insured, a Monthly Disability-Annuity as stated on the face hereof; the first payment to be payable upon receipt of due proof of such Disability and subsequent payments monthly thereafter during the continuance of such total and permanent Disability.\u201d\nThe rules governing the construction of insurance policies are the same as those applicable to other contracts. Capps v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 318 Ill. 350; Bergholm v. Peoria Life Ins. Co., 284 U. S. 489.\nIn the Capps case the court said (p. 354): \u201cThe principles governing the interpretation of insurance contracts are the same as those applicable to other contracts.....Our function is to construe the contract before us and not to make a new one.\u201d And in the Bergholm case the Supreme Court of the United States said (p. 492): \u201cContracts of insurance, like other contracts, must be construed according to the terms which the parties have used, to be taken and understood, in the absence of ambiguity, in their plain, ordinary and popular sense.\u201d It is only when there is ambiguity in a policy that the law invokes the rule that it shall be construed most favorably to the insured and .against the insurance company.\nWe think the policy is clear and unambiguous in the instant case. It provides that the payment of $50 a month for disability commences when the proof of disability is made. It specifically provides that, \u201cthe first payment to be payable upon receipt of due proof of such Disability and subsequent payments monthly thereafter during the continuance of such total and permanent Disability.\u201d This language is plain and there is no room for construction. The first payment of $50 is payable \u201cupon receipt of due proof of such Disability\u201d and subsequent payments \u201cmonthly thereafter. \u2019 \u2019\nA number of authorities are cited by both parties. Plaintiff cites among other cases Felton v. Equitable Life Assurance Society,. \u2014 Ark. \u2014, 71 S. W. (2d) 1049; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Case, \u2014 Ark. \u2014, 71 S. W. (2d) 199; Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Marshall, 29 F. (2d) (C. C. A.) 977.\nIn the Felton case, where the policy is identical in terms, so far as is pertinent here, with the policy before us, it was held that recovery could be had by the insured\u2019s administratrix from the date of the insured\u2019s permanent disability, because he was mentally incapacitated from making proof of his disability from the date he was disabled. After thus deciding the case the court based its decision also on another ground holding, in effect, that recovery could be had from the date of the disability, not from the date when the proof of such disability was made.\nWhatever may be said of the holding in the Felton case, and other authorities, we are clear that there is no ambiguity in the policy before us, and the judgment of the municipal court of Chicago is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMcSurely and Hatchett, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice O\u2019Connor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith & Haddad, of Chicago, for appellant; George J. Haddad, of counsel.",
      "Mater, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, of Chicago, for appellee; Miles Gr. Seeley, of Chicago, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Badeh F. Jabara, Appellant, v. The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Appellee.\nGen. No. 37,937.\nHeard in the first division of this court for the first district at the December term, 1934.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1935.\nSmith & Haddad, of Chicago, for appellant; George J. Haddad, of counsel.\nMater, Meyer, Austrian & Platt, of Chicago, for appellee; Miles Gr. Seeley, of Chicago, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0147-01",
  "first_page_order": 175,
  "last_page_order": 178
}