Majority
Headnote
Insurance policy — 'proper construction oj, when determined by a preliminary paper.In March, 1813, Irving M. Avery procured a policy on his life for $10,000. The policy was issued on the tontine savings fund plan, and was issued for the benefit of plaintiff if living at his death, and if not living, then to his children. The end of the tontine period was fifteen years. At the end of the fifteen years, if Irving M. Avery was alive, it was the right of the holder of the policy to withdraw the entire share of the assets, whether in the reserve fund proper or in the accumulated assets. Irving M. Avery survived the prescribed period, and the plaintiff’s husband, who then held the policy, elected to withdraw the entire cash assets according to the fifth condition of the policy which is annexed to the complaint. The company paid him $5,016.80. He demanded $1,110, which was refused. The basis for this demand was that the real contract between the parties called for the payment of this sum of $1,110. The assured assigned the policy to the plaintiff and she brings this action. The question arises upon demurrer. The plaintiff seeks to reform the policy under which she has no claim, and to make it conform to the real contract and to recover upon the reformed contract. The action is proper. A- contract may be reformed and enforced as reformed in the same action. (Maher v. Hibernia, Ins. Co., 67 N. Y., 283 ; Van Tuyl v. Westchester Ins. Co., 55 id., 657.) The contract is not conclusive, as written, under the rule that the real contract is considered to be finally expressed in the writing. (Hoag v. Owen, 51 N. Y., 611 ; Bogardus v. N. Y. Life Ins. Co., 101 id., 328.)
The complaint is sufficient. It avers a contract of insurance on the tontine plan, and that at the end of the tontine period the holder of the policy would be entitled to receive $1,110 in cash if he desired to withdraw on the receipt of the cash value. That the terms of the contract were contained in a paper which was preliminary to the policy, but which was referred to and treated as the true construction of the conditions contained in the policy itself. That the policy does not express the contract. This brings the case within the rule stated in Jackson v. Andrews ( 59 N. Y., 211 ). ( Whittemore v. Farrington, 16 N. Y., 152 .)
The objection urged against the pleading that a contract, such as is set forth therein, would be subversive of the tontine plan, is not
The pleading seems, therefore, to be sufficient, and the order and judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
Pratt, J., concurred.
Order overruling defendant’s demurrer and judgment thereon affirmed, with costs.