{ "id": 8614238, "name": "ERNEST E. CARTER, Administrator, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Carter v. Connecticut General Life Insurance", "decision_date": "1935-11-01", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "665", "last_page": "668", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "208 N.C. 665" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "175 S. E., 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 45", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622346 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0045-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 S. E., 743", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 262", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628662 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0262-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S. E., 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625395 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S. E., 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 162", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624006 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0162-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 U. S., 402", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 8297427 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/183/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 U. S., 673", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3383149 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/95/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S. E., 835", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621352 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S. E., 845", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N. C., 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621865 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S. E., 175", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 848", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8633213 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0848-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S. E., 269", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 166", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 S. E., 346", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 387", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628902 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0387-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 518, "char_count": 9095, "ocr_confidence": 0.477, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.312198901194758e-07, "percentile": 0.7885921148298607 }, "sha256": "2dd718c04cf9bee712d854c301e2cb879e30a68026fda5128fb655de8ca102d7", "simhash": "1:39587989503823df", "word_count": 1514 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "ERNEST E. CARTER, Administrator, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.,\nafter stating the case: The evidence fails to show: (1) total and permanent disability of insured during period of employment as defined in the policies, or (2) written notice of disability to superior while the insured was in the employ of the Gulf Companies, or within sixty days thereafter. These are conditions precedent to the right of recovery under the policies in suit.\nIt is. true, the insured\u2019s physician gave it as his opinion that on 17 October, 1931, the last time he waited upon him, \u201cthe boy was unable to do any kind of work at that time, or pursue any kind of occupation.\u201d Nevertheless, plaintiff\u2019s intestate did actually perform all the duties pertaining to his employment, at regular wages, during the month of January, 1932, until his employment ceased, and also in the following June and July. These were not trifling or minor jobs, on part-time basis, as was the case in Smith v. Equitable Assurance Society, 205 N. C., 387, 171 S. E., 346, strongly relied upon by plaintiff. They were regular full-time positions, which were filled in an entirely satisfactory manner and without complaint of any kind.\nThe case is controlled by the decisions in Hill v. Ins. Co., 201 N. C., 166, 176 S. E., 269; Boozer v. Assurance Society, 206 N. C., 848, 175 S. E., 175, and Thigpen v. Ins. Co., 204 N. C., 551, 168 S. E., 845.\nThere is a natural feeling that after an insurance company has received its premiums, it ought not to be allowed to escape liability or to-avoid responsibility, and the just rule is that policies will be construed strictly against the insurers and in favor of the assured. Conyard v. Ins. Co., 204 N. C., 506, 168 S. E., 835. \u201cThe policy having been prepared by the insurers, it should be construed most strongly against them.\u201d Bank v. Ins. Co., 95 U. S., 673; 14 R. C. L., 926. But it is not the province of the courts to construe contracts broader than the parties have elected to make them, or to award benefits where none were intended. Guarantee Co. v. Mechanics Bank, 183 U. S., 402.\nThe letter of plaintiff\u2019s intestate\u2019s physician written under date of 3 November, 1931, at the request of the employer\u2019s agent, could hardly be regarded as written notice of disability under the policies in suit, for the reason it was not so intended (Trust Co. v. Asheville, 207 N. C., 162, 176 S. E., 268), and it negatives rather than affirms the probable permanency of plaintiff\u2019s intestate\u2019s disability. Guy v. Ins. Co., 207 N. C., 278, 176 S. E., 554. This statement of the physician would not bar a recovery, if, in fact, the disability were permanent. Fields v. Assurance Co., 195 N. C., 262, 141 S. E., 743. But' the letter is not regarded as adequate, if relied upon as notice of total and permanent disability. Wyche v. Ins. Co., 207 N. C., 45, 175 S. E., 697.\nUnder the facts in evidence, plaintiff\u2019s intestate was not entitled to-recover at the time the policies in suit were terminated. The motion to nonsuit should have been allowed.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "R. R. Williams, William J. Coche, Jr., and Johnson & Johnson for plaintiff.", "John Izard and Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ERNEST E. CARTER, Administrator, v. CONNECTICUT GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 1 November, 1935.)\nA. Insurance P d: R c \u2014 Held: Evidence failed to show disability at time of termination of employment, and insurer was not liable.\nPlaintiff\u2019s intestate was insured under a policy of group insurance providing disability benefits for employees becoming totally and permanently disabled while employed by the company. While in the company\u2019s employ insured underwent two operations, but thereafter returned to work, and later his services with the company were terminated, and he was paid a premium refund, and the pay roll deduction order for insurance cancelled. About sis months thereafter insured was emiiloyed by the company for two weeks. Thereafter insured again became ill and died of cancer of the stomach. There was expert testimony that insured was suffering from cancer at the time the second operation was performed while he was in the employ of the company. Held: The evidence failed to show permanent and total disability at the time insured\u2019s employment was terminated and the premium refund paid to him, since the evidence discloses that insured, after his illness occurring during his employment and before the termination of the insurance contract, worked full time for the company on two different occasions, and was not, therefore, permanently and totally disabled during his employment before termination of the contract.\n3. Insurance E b\u2014\nA policy of insurance will be construed strictly against insurer and in favor of insured, but the policy cannot be enlarged by construction beyond the meaning of the terms used.\n3. Insurance M c\u2014\nA letter of a physician stating that insured had survived a very serious sickness, but was at that time rapidly improving and should completely recover, is held insufficient as notice of permanent and total disability,, although it would not preclude recovery under the disability clause in the policy if in fact the disability proved permanent.\nAppeal by defendant from Sink, J., at March Term, 1935, of BuN-OOMBE.\nCivil action to recover on two certificates of group insurance, one for $1,000, the other for $1,250, issued by defendant to plaintiff\u2019s intestate,, an employee of the Gulf Refining Company, a subsidiary of the Gulf Oil Corporation.\nThe certificates in suit provide for payment, in the event of death, to the beneficaries named therein, or \u201cin the event of total and permanent disability occurring before age sixty, to the insured himself.\u201d\n\u201cTotal Disability: Any employee shall be deemed to be totally disabled within the meaning of this policy if injuries, sickness, or disease continuously prevent him from performing any and every duty pertaining to his occupation.\u201d\n\u201cPermanent Total Disability: If said total disability began before age 60, and presumably will during his life prevent the employee from pursuing any occupation for wages or profit; ... he shall be deemed to be totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of this policy.\u201d\nIt is further provided in said certificates that the insurance shall cease whenever the employee \u201cleaves the service of his employer, or cancels his pay roll deduction order,\u201d unless converted into a life insurance policy according to option contained therein, which was not done in the instant case.\nWith respect to payment of claims, the Master Policy provides as follows: \u201cNo claim for permanent total disability incurred by an employee during his period of employment shall be paid after the termination of his employment, unless the employee gives notice of the disability to his superior in writing while in the employ of the Gulf Companies or within sixty days thereafter.\u201d\nThe certificates in suit were issued 13 May, 1930, when plaintiff\u2019s intestate was employed by the Gulf Refining Company as a truck driver. In May, 1931, the insured underwent an operation for appendicitis, and in August, 1931, a second operation was performed for an obstruction of the colon. A period of convalescence followed, and in December, 1931, the insured reported back for work. lie was given position of service station attendant on 6 January, 1932, and worked until 31 January, 1932, when his services with the company were terminated, and the pay roll deduction order for insurance canceled, the insured being paid at the time a premium refund of sixty cents on his group insurance. He did not elect to carry his insurance thereafter.\nPlaintiff\u2019s intestate later worked for the Gulf Refining Company from '22 June, 1932, to 6 July, 1932, relieving a service station attendant who was ill during this period.\nIii August, 1932, plaintiff\u2019s intestate again became too' ill to work, and in the following December, the cause of his disability was diagnosed as \u2022cancer of the stomach, from which he died in January, 1933.\nThere is testimony that the cancer was forming for some time prior to his death. The physician who operated in August, 1931, testified that he was then \u201csuspicious of possible malignancy,\u201d and \u201cin the light of hindsight, I know now the vascular growth which I found at the second \u25a0operation in August, 1931, was a cancer.\u201d\nOn 3 November, 1931, the physician wrote the agent of the Gulf Defining Company, at the agent\u2019s request, giving a full history of his patient\u2019s illness and stating, \u201cWe all feel he is the sickest individual we have ever seen survive,\u201d but adding: \u201cAt present he is rapidly gaining in weight and strength and should make a complete recovery.\u201d\nThis letter was offered as written notice of disability under the policies in suit.\nDemurrers to the evidence or motions to nonsuit; overruled; exceptions.\nFrom a verdict finding that the insured was \u201ctotally and permanently \u25a0disabled on 31 January, 1932,\u201d and that written notice thereof was given \u201chis employer while in the employ of the Gulf Companies, or within .sixty (60) days thereafter,\u201d and judgment thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nR. R. Williams, William J. Coche, Jr., and Johnson & Johnson for plaintiff.\nJohn Izard and Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton for defendant." }, "file_name": "0665-01", "first_page_order": 731, "last_page_order": 734 }