ARK.] MUTUAL AID UNION V. WHED.BEE. 1017
MUTUAL Ain UNION V. WHEDBEE. Opinion delivered May 25, 1925. INSURANCE—CONCLUSIVENESS OF SETTLEMENT.—Where defendant company's adjuster had represented that the company was hot liable on a benefit certificate and offered a small settlement, but plaintiff did not accept it until lie had made a full independ-: ent investigation, the settlement was binding, though plaintiff, thereby surrendered rights which the law would have sustained. Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Greenwood District ; John E. Tatum, Judge; reverSed.• J. V. Walker and Duty ce Duty, for appellant. Kincannon Kincannon, for appellee. * HUMPHREYS, J. Appellee instituted this suit against appellant in the circuit court of Sebastian County, Green-wood District, to recover an alleged balance of $854.91 on an insurance certificate issued by appelNnt . to Mrs. Mary Cotton, in which the appellee was named as the beneficiary. • • A number of defenses were interposed to the suit, one of which was an alleged settlement and release of the claim*. • Appellee filed an auswer denying that he compromised and settled the claim, in which it was stated that, if he executed a release, it 'was induced by fraud and • mis-• representations of appellant's agent. At the 'conclusion of the testimony, apPellant moved for an instructed verdict, which the court refused to give, over its objection and exception. On the contrary, be* submitted the cause to the jury upon the pleadings, 'testimony, and declarations of law that he regarded applicable to the facts in the case, resulting in a verdict-and consequent judgment in faver of appellee, from which is this appeal. The undisputed facts relative to the issue of a settlement of the claim are, in substance, as follows After the death of the insured and proof thereof, which was made for appellee by H. L. Holbrook, cashier of the Huntington State Bank, W. A. Mundell,•agent and-
1018 MUTUAL AID UNION v. WHEDBEE. [168 adjuster of appellant, called on Mr. Holbrook and convinced him that appellee could not recover on the certificate of insurance because he (appellee) was not related to the insured by consanguinity. He had the case of Home Mutual Benefit Association v. Keller, reported in 148 , Ark. at page 361, with him, and interpreted it to mean that, if an insured should take out an insurance policy on the life of his son-in-law, it would be a wagering contract and void, whereas the opinion was to the effect that a son-in-law had no insurable interest in a father-in-law by reason of the relationship. The Hunt-ington State Bank had loaned appellee $200 on the policy with which to bring his mother-in-law back from Tennes-see, where she had died, for burial. Mundell said that appellant would pay the premiums with 6 per cent. interest back to appellee if he would accept same in full settle- , ment of the claim. They thereupon went to see appellee, and Mundell stated to him that they were not liable upon the policy under the ruling made by the Supreme Court in the Keller case. He then proposed a settlement with appellee on the basis which he had suggested to Holbrook. Appellee became abusive to Mundell, and angrily declined the offer. Holbrook had no connection whatever with appellant. He was appellee 's friend and.banker. Appel-lee and Holbrook discussed the matter on several occa- sions, and Holbrook, by and with the consent of appellee, sought the advice of the bank's attorneys. The attorneys advised that appellee could not recover, whereupon appellee requested Holbrook to write to Mundell that he would accept a return of the premiums and interest, amounting to $145.09, in full settlement of the claim. This information was conveyed to Mundell about two months after his unpleasant interview with appellee. Appellant paid the amount, and received a written release of the claim. It will be observed that, according to the undisputed facts thus detailed, appellee refused to rely upon the representations made by Mundell,.but made an independ-
ARK. ] 1019 ent investigation. and was. governed by the results thereof in making the settlement. This record reflects that the parties . settled the disputed claim, each relying upon his own judgment, after ample opportunity on th . e Part of appellee to acquire a knowledge of every fact bearing upon the question of the claim. Having made an investigation to his entire satisfaction, he will not be heard to say that he was deceived. It is immaterial, under these circunistances, whether he surrendered rights . that the law,-if applied . to, would have sustained.. Mason v. Wil-son, 43 Ark. 172 . ; Gammill v. Johnson, 47 Ark. 335; Wil-lingham v. Jordan, 75 Ark. 266; Fender v. Helterbrandt, 101 Ark. 335 ; Hennessy v. Baker, 137 U. S. 78. The trial court should have instructed a verdict for appellant on tbe undispUted facts, and, , on account of his refusal to do. so, the judgment is reversed, and the cause is dismissed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.