(1) WAS THE GIRL A SUICIDE?
The Insurance Company Will Refuse To Pay The Policy on Miss Pugh's Life.
FOUND DEAD IN THE HALLWAY
The Granddaughter of W.T. Phillips Died Suddenly After Being Insured, and now the Courts Must Decide as to Legality.
Did Willie Ilena Pugh Suicide?
In the latter part of May, Mr. W.T. Phillips, of Delight Twiggs county, walked into the office of the Union Central Life Insurance Company at Macon and applied to Mr. Lowery for a $5,000 policy on his granddaughter, Willie Ilena Pugh, then about 18 years old. Mr. Phillips paid part cash and gave his note for the balance of the amount required on the application.
On the 3rd of June Mr. Lowery wrote Mr. Phillips a postal card, stating that the policy had been received o.k., and that he would go down to Delight and deliver it in a few days.
When the postal card reached Delight, it was taken from the office by Mr. A. Phillips, who was on his way to Macon for a coffin in which to bury Miss Willie Ilena Pugh.
Now it seems by statements made by both sides, that a lawsuit will follow.
Mr. Lowery went down in Twiggs county to investigate the case, and claims to have proof that the girl committed suicide. His company will fight the payment of the policy on the ground that it was never in force-that the postal card was written hurriedly to notify Mr. Phillips that the risk had been accepted, but that it had been accepted with certain conditions. Those conditions were that the young lady could satisfactorily answer certain questions which Mr. Lowery would be required to ask.
Said Mr. Lowery to a Telegraph reporter yesterday:
"We will contend against the payment of the policy on the ground that it was never in force and effect, but I am satisfied that the girl committed suicide. She tried to do so only a short time before. Her relatives told me that the girl had been in the habit of saying that life was a burden to her, and she didn't want to live. Now, the circumstances in the case would indicate that the suicide theory is true. The manner of her death, for instance, is strange. Dr. O'Daniel reported that the girl was in perfect health. At noon on the day of her death she cooked dinner, ate heartily and to all appearances was as well as anybody. About the middle of the afternoon a negro returned to the house from the field and the girl was lying in the hallway on a quilt. He went in to get a pitcher, and found that she was dead. Death had seemingly come without a struggle.
"When Mr. Phillips came into my office, he wanted to insure the girl's life in his own interest. I informed him that he could insure it for the benefit of the girl's estate and then she could transfer it to him.
"I don't know that Mr. Phillips will claim the insurance money. He has not yet filed proof of death. If he does try to collect it, however, we are going to fight against the payment.
"The coroner's jury found a verdict of death from unknown causes, and I think they will have a hard time making out a case."
THE OTHER SIDE.
Mr. Phillips is going to make every effort to collect the money-$5,000. He claims that he did not know the risk was accepted until after the girl was dead, but he is satisfied that the postal card announcing the arrival of the policy o.k. was sufficient acknowledgment of the company's liability.
Mr. Phillips' theory of the death is this: At an unfortunate time, the girl fell into a creek while crossing a footlog. The results of getting wet caused her to have congestion of the brain, and died while nobody was at home on the afternoon she was found by the negro who went after water. He states that his two granddaughters were living with him and his wife. The younger of the two sisters was absent at the time of the death, but that the father of the girls had left them some money and that, as their grandfather, he was made their guardian. They desired to insure their lives for each other, and he was simply acting for them.
Mr. Phillips has employed Messrs. R.V. Hardeman & Son of Macon to represent him.
Both sides are determined to fight, and considerable interest is attaching to the case, as Mr. Phillips has a great many friends as well as some bitter enemies in his section of the state.
Source: The Macon Telegraph, Macon, Georgia, Saturday Morning, August 10, 1895; Pg. 6
(2) Add'l Info:
UNION CENT. LIFE INS. CO. v. PHILLIPS
(Circuit Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. February 6, 1900.) No. 838
Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of Georgia.
Action by William T. Phillips, administrator of Willis Arlena Pugh, deceased, against the Union Central Life Insurance Company. From a decree for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.
Phillips, as guardian of Ella L. Pugh, minor, brought suit at law for $5,000 and damages and attorney's fees in the superior court of Bibb county, Ga., against the Union Central Life Insurance Company of Ohio, on a policy alleged to have been issued by that company on the life of Willis Arlena Pugh. an older sister, also a minor, for the benefit of, and payable to, the said Ella L. Pugh, the plaintiff; alleging that the policy had been executed and forwarded by the company to its manager, T. S. Lowry, Macon, Ga., about the 1st day of June, 1895. and that said Lowry thereupon became the agent of the assured for the delivery of said policy, and the said Lowry undertook and agreed as such to deliver, but had refused to deliver it; that the assured died on the 12th day of said month of June. Plaintiff also alleged demand for the policy and for payment, and due proof of claim and death, and that payment had been refused; giving notice to defendant to produce application and policy of insurance sued on, and praying for judgment. There was exhibited to the petition the receipt of Lowry, manager, to W. T. Phillips, of May 8, 1895. for $36.95, and for note for $100, being the first annual premium, and embodying agreement "that said Willis Arlena Pugh is to be insured from date of this receipt in accordance with the provisions, conditions, and stipulations of the policies of said company. If, however, the application shall be declined by the company, this agreement to be null and void, and the amount returned to said Phillips by me on surrender of receipt." Defendant removed the cause into said United States circuit court, and therein appeared and pleaded, denying all the allegations in plaintiff's petition except paragraphs 2, 12, and 16; among the paragraphs emphatically denied being paragraph 14, which expressly alleged that the application and policy were for the benefit of, and payable to, said Ella L. Pugh.
The case was called for trial on the 15th of December, 1896, a year and a half after the death of the assured, and defendant's attorneys handed a policy to plaintiff's attorneys in response to notices given in petition and otherwise, accompanying the said policy with written and sworn response of John M. Patterson, president of defendant, showing the policy furnished to be the only one ever executed by defendant on life of the deceased. Plaintiff's attorneys, upon discovering the policy was not payable to Ella L. Pugh, but, in case of death of said Willis A. Pugh, to her executors, administrators, or assigns, moved to amend the suit at law by making it a suit in favor of Phillips as administrator of Willis A. Pugh, deceased, on a policy payable to such administrator, instead of a suit, as it then stood, in favor of Phillips as guardian of his minor ward, Ella L. Pugh, on a policy payable to her; the plaintiff incorporating In his motion allegations to the effect that defendant had refused to allow him to see the application or policy, and had concealed the terms, conditions, and provisions of the same, and that it then for the first time came to his knowledge that the same was payable to the legal representative of deceased. The court refused to allow the amendment, but by a separate order. on motion of plaintiff's counsel, ordered that plaintiff be allowed "thirty days in which to file a bill on the equity side of the court, and in default thereof said case stand dismissed."
On the 4th of January, 1897, Phillips, the same natural person, but as administrator of Willis A. Pugh, the deceased, and not as guardian of Ella L. Pugh, his minor ward In life, nor as plaintiff in the suit at law, filed a bill in the same court against the same defendant in aid of the common-law suit, under order of the judge at chambers, granted on that day, in which order the judge required the defendant to show cause why the common-law action should not be enjoined. Complainant alleged in his bill substantially what the plaintiff did in the common-law petition, expressly alleging in paragraph 8 that said Lowry, manager, after receiving said policy, held the same as agent of orator, and alleging, additionally, that said Lowry, as manager, on the 3d of June, 1895, after receiving said policy, "wrote and mailed to orator, at Delight. Twiggs county, Ga., a postal notifying your orator that said policy had been received by him 'O. K.,' and that he would shortly come down and deliver same," which postal was duly received at Delight post office on June 5, 1895, and that before he went to Twiggs county, and turned over said policy to orator or Willis Arlena, but while he still held the same as agent of Willis Arlena, to wit, on the 11th of June, 1895. the said Willis Arlena died. The complainant also charged fraud on the part of defendant, its agents and attorneys, in failing and refusing to deliver and exhibit the policy or copy thereof, and in repossessing itself of the same, and that orator was illiterate, and could not read, and believed the application was made by Willis Arlena for a policy to be payable to her sister Ella Louise Pugh, minor ward of orator, and that said policy had been so issued, and did not discover otherwise until said policy and application were produced under notice in court in the common-law suit on the 15th of December, 1896; that he had, under such impression that the policy was payable to said Ella Louise, made proof of death, and demand of payment, and brought the said suit as her guardian, in Bibb superior court, to recover the amount due on said policy. Complainant also charged that defendant refused to allow his counsel to inspect said policy, or give a copy thereof, to prevent proper suit being brought within one year after death, and thus invoke the one-year clause to defeat said suit. He prayed injunction against common-law suit, delivery of policy, recovery of the money, and for damages, and for attorney's fees, and for general relief. ...........
The case shows that on March 30, 1895, Miss Willis Arlena Pugh made application to the Union Central Life Insurance Company for insurance on her own life, using therefor the blanks of the company, and answering in full all questions therein propounded. The eighth answer is as follows: "Amount of policy, $5,000; kind of policy, 20 paymt. option; premium, how payable, A." On the 7th of May following she was examined by a medical examiner of the company, and was by him recommended on that day for insurance in the company. On the 8th of May following her grandfather and guardian, the present complainant, paid a part of the premium to the company's general agent and department manager, taking receipt therefor, and giving a note for the balance due. The receipt given is as follows:
"Union Central Life Insurance Company, Cincinnati, Ohio.
"Macon, Ga., May 8, 1895.
"Premium, $136.95.
"Insurance, $5,000.
"Received of W. T. Phillips, thirty-six 95/100 and note for one hundred dollars, being first annual premium on the application for a policy of insurance in the Union Central Life Insurance Company of Cincinnati, Ohio, for 5,000 dollars on the life of Willis Ilena Pugh. It is hereby understood and agreed that the said Willis Ilena Pugh is to be insured from the date of this receipt, in accordance with all the provisions, conditions, and stipulations of the policies of said company, provided said application shall be approved and accepted by said company. If, however, the application shall be declined by the company, this agreement to be null and void, and the amount (receipt whereof is herein acknowledged) is to be returned to said W. T. Phillips by me on surrender of this receipt. T. S. Lowry, Mgr."............
In the present instance the variance between the case made by the evidence and that by the bill is such that the latter requires amendment to support the decree, and, under the controlling authorities cited, we deem it our duty to take such action as will permit such amendments as the equity rules warrant and as counsel may advise, upon such terms as may be just. The decree of the circuit court is reversed, and the cause is remanded, with instructions to therein proceed in accordance with the views herein expressed, and otherwise as equity requires.
Source: United States Circuit Courts Of Appeals Reports, Volume 41, 1900; Pgs. 264-271
