Opinion
No. 38224.
February 4, 1952.
1. Insurance — master accident insurance — medical and hospital expenses.
Where employees of a company were insured against automobile accidents for bodily injuries and property damage, as per certificates, and the policy certificate was silent as to any indemnity for medical and and hospital payments, and the undisputed proof was that in order to be covered for medical and hospital expenses an additional premium must be paid with a certificate to that effect, and the proof was also that no such certificate had been obtained and no premium therefor paid, there was no liability under the policy for hospital and medical expenses.
Headnote as approved by Hall, J.
APPEAL from the circuit court of Marshall County; T.H. McELROY, Judge.
Fant Bush, for appellant.
I. The policy of insurance and the certificate of insurance must be read together. Murray v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 145 Miss. 266, 110 So. 660; 44 C.J.S. 1200, 1203, pars. 299, 299b; Wing v. Jno. Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 314 Mass. 269, 49 N.E.2d 905; Jno. Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Boston v. Dorman, 108 Fed. 2d 220; All States Life Ins. Co. v. Steward, 242 Ala. 258, 50 So.2d 784.
II. When the master policy and the automobile certificate of insurance are read together, it is most clear that the appellee was not insured for "medical payments".
III. Even if the master policy is read alone it affords no insurance to the appellee covering medical payments.
IV. The declaration of the appellee shows on its face that the appellee was not insured for medical payments.
Chester L. Sumners, R.L. Smallwood, Jr., and H.N. Clayton, for appellees.
In Murray v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 145 Miss. 266, 110 So. 660, cited by the appellant, the rule is stated that the provision of a policy should not be construed in favor of the insurer unless clearly required by the language of the policy. A further statement of the rule of construction is made in Great American Insurance Co. v. Bass, et al., 208 Miss. 436, 44 So.2d 532: "If the language of the policy be ambiguous or doubtful a reasonable construction in favor of the insured is indicated. Moreover, the policy must be construed in the light of its purpose and the hazards against which it was designed to protect. Fleming v. Travelers Ins. Co., 206 Miss. 284, 39 So.2d 885."
We respectfully submit that counsel for appellant argue about the control of the attached certificates when confronted with the provision of the master policy, and argue about the control of the master policy when the attached certificates fail to give any relief.
It is true that the original policy refers to attached certificates. Nowhere do we find in the attached certificates any provision excluding medical payments or any provision that the said policy is limited to bodily injury liability.
Referring back to the master policy which sets out "Exclusions" in full, there is no exclusion of medical payments as set out in the face of the policy. Following thereunder "Conditions" are set out in full and under 15 it is provided that the conditions of the policy itself control except on proper endorsement duly signed. Again we say there is no signed endorsement changing the terms of the general policy.
Appellees brought suit for the recovery of medical and hospital benefits alleged to be due under a certificate of insurance issued by appellant. The case was tried before the circuit judge without a jury and judgment entered for appellees in the sum of $1901.95, the amount sued for. Hence this appeal.
There is no dispute as to the facts. Mrs. Keith was seriously injured while riding in an automobile operated by her husband and her medical, hospital and nurse's bills were in the amount of the recovery. The question presented is whether appellant insured against the stated peril, and on this feature there is likewise no dispute.
Mr. Keith was employed by Singer Sewing Machine Company. Appellant issued to that company and its affiliated industries a master insurance policy whereby they were protected against damages for bodily injury liability with limits of $5,000 to each person and $10,000 for each accident and property damage liability with a limit of $5,000 for each accident, and "Medical Payments As Per Certs." It is undisputed that "Certs." means "Certificates." The master policy provided that it should apply to automobiles owned by employees of the insured who have authorized local managers of the insured to procure the same and to whom certificates are issued. A certificate was issued to Mr. Keith, which gives his name and address and a description of his automobile, and this certificate specifically insures him against bodily injury liability and property damage liability in the above stated amounts, but it is entirely silent as to any indemnity for medical and hospital payments. The certificate shows that his premium for the bodily injury liability was $26 and for the property damage liability $14.50, and it further shows that the total premium paid was $40.50. It shows no payment of any premium for indemnity for hospital and medical expenses.
The vice president of appellant company testified, and it is undisputed, that if Mr. Keith had desired indemnity for medical and hospital payments he could have applied for the same and the company would have attached to the certificate a printed endorsement, the form of which is in evidence, whereby the company would have afforded this protection in the amount of $500 upon payment of an additional premium of $5 or in the amount of $1,000 upon payment of an additional premium of $7. It is undisputed that no such additional premium was paid and no such endorsement was attached to Mr. Keith's certificate. It is patent from the record before us that Mr. Keith never applied for, never paid any premium for, and never obtained any coverage or indemnity whatsoever for medical and hospital payments and that consequently the appellant has never assumed any liability therefor. The judgment of the learned trial court must therefore be reversed and a judgment entered here for appellant.
Reversed and judgment here.
Alexander, Lee, Kyle and Arrington, JJ., concur.