564 PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BELMONT. [177 : PYRAMID- LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY V. BELMONT. • ;. Opinion. ' delivered Jtine 11 . 19 . 28: • • INSURANCE—FAILURE TO OELIVER POLICY.---Where - a life insurance policy, provided that there should be , no contract of insuianee until a policy had been deliyered .and the first premium paid, the contract ,was not consummated on appreval of the applica-' tion by the company's mediCal director . without the delivery of the liolicy. 2. CONTRACTS—I:FPI:VT OF WRITING.—When a written agreement is signed, it takes the place of all antecedent discussions and propositions. 3. INSURANCM—PAROL AGREEMENT AS TO TIME OF TAKING EFFECT.— . • *here an application for insurance expressly required that the policy should be delivered in order"to create a policy of insurance, it cannot be shoWn that there'was a prior parol agreement , that the insurance should become effective upon the approval • a the application by the medical director. • . INSURANCE—AMOUNT OF POLICY—JURY QUESTION.—In an action on a prethium note, the question as to the amount of the policy to.be issued held, under the evidence, to be a queition for the jUry. , 5. INSURANCE—MEETING OF MINDS OF PARTIES.—The . minds of the parties must meet on all the essential terms of an insurance contract. .
PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. V: BELMONT. 565 Appeal from Union Circuit Court, Second'Division; W. A. Spear, Judge ; affirmed. Brooks Hays and Marsh,. McKay hfe Marlin, for appellant. Coulter ce Coulter, for appellee. MEEIAFFY, J. Appellant brought this suit in the Union' Circuit Court to recover from the aPpellee the sum of $1,611 and interest -Upon a note; said note having been given for first premium on' a life insurance policy. Defendant answered; specifically denying the allegations of the complaint, and denied that policy was ever delivered to him by the company, or that it was ever intended by the parties' to be deli-V-ered. He further alleged that . the note was obtained on the fraudulent representation that it was necessary that the note accompany appellee's application for life insurance ; that it was fraudulently represented to hiria that, in the event of a failure to issue and deliver the policy, said . note would be canceled and returned to him; that no policy of any kind was ever is'sued or- delivered to defendant. He further alleged that it was fraudulently represented to him that stock in the Pyramid Life Insurance Company in the sum of $1;000 would al:so be delivered to him, and that no stock of any kind had ever been delivered, and that 'there was a total failure of consideration for .said note ; 'that this suit wa,s begun by plaintiff with a full knowledge 6f the above facts, and that no cause of action existed on the note ; that, notwithstanding' they knew all the facts, and knew there was no liability on the note, they - sued out a writ, of garnishment, and wrongfully, illegally and maliciously impounded his funds, and that he was damaged in the sum of $2,000. • • The appellant introduced the following note : "$1,611. El Dorado, Ark:; 5-22, 19216. "On or before ninety days after date, I, We, or either' of us promise to pay to the order of myself or'legal holder, one thousand six hundred. eleYen and no 100 dollars, for value received, negotiable and payable,.without defalcation or discount, at the office of , with
4566 PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BELMONT. [177 .interest4from date at the rate of 6 per cent. per annum, and at the rate of 10 per cent. per annum after maturity until,paid. The makers and.indorsers of this note hereby severally waive presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment and protest. ' 'This -note is given for premium for life insurance policy -which has been issued in -the form applied for ,and delivered-to the maker of this note. "Henry B. Belmont "Garrett Hotel,, P. 0. El Dorado, Ark." • Indorsed at bottom . of note in pencil: "Claude Hol-lan, 1027.'" Indorsed on.back: "H. B. Belmont." The appellee introduced the following testimony: • Brooks Hays testified that he was sales director and local counsel for the plaintiff. He had actual supervision of the sales contracts of the company. The original contract has _been in .the possession of Mr. Hollan ever ,since the date of issuance. Mr..Hollan is the local agent --or. the company. Does not know that . he has seen the . original policy. Might have looked at it in the court room. Hollan , had it last spring in the court room, and -tried to get appellee to take it, and he_would not. The grace period -had.not expired at that time. The thirty days :had not elapsed, and it was in force at that time. Twelve months had elapsed when witness tendered it to Mr. Coulter for the defendant. Witness did not become associated with the company until after this .policy had been held by Mr..Hollan for some time. According to •the company's viewpoint, the policy had been delivered. It held it for Mr. Belmont's benefit. This, referring to exhibit to pleadings, is a copy of the policy, and this is a photostatic copy of -the application._ The original application is very likely in their files, but this is an exact copy. The policy was not to be in force until it was delivered to applicant in OA health, and premium paid. The premium was paid by note. The policy and application which is made a part of .the policy is the usual -contract of insurance, the parts of which that are ,material to the issues in this,case are as follows :
AAR.] PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. /1. BELMONT. 667 "B. That every declatation hereinabove contained is true. That there shall be no contract of insurance until a policy shall have been delivered to me and the first premium paid to said company, or its duly authorized agent, during my lifetime and good health." "I hereby declare that I have paid te Cland L. Hol-lan sixteen hundred eleven dollars in cash, arid that I hold his receipt for same. "Henry B. Belmont.. (Signature a applicant). "Dated "Rec. note, $1,611." The policy was sent to Belmont about September. No part of the note had been paid. The appellee testified that he made application to Mr. Hollan for his policy of insurance. He stated: "About May of last year HoIlan came to me and started talking about insurance, and I wouldn't listen to it; I told him I didn't have the Money ; and he kept on talking to me about it. If I Would take out a poliey he would give me some stock in the company, but I didn't have any money at that time, and he says, 'Well, you don't have to paY on your policy- now, and the stock will be delivered to you.' He says : 'I will give you stock equivalent to $1,000,' and I says, 'Well, I will talk tO you about it later' ; so I took the matter intO consideration, and , he come back in the evening again, and I says, 'I will take out a policy for $25,000,' atid he says, 'Well, the company don't write any more than $20,000 to one person,' and I told him, 'I -want-a $25,600 policy,' and he made up the application and passed it over for me 'to sign, and I thought he made it out like I told him to. 'Ile wrote up the application, and had md examined; and I says, 'When are you going to send me the poliO?' and le says,, 'You will get it in thirty days, the company Will send it to you.' I didn't have any ready money, and I eiecuted the note for the premium. Thiity days went by, ; and I never got nothing, and I met him and asked, Say,.Wliatis the matter with the policy?' and 'he Said he would Write to
568 PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. 2). 1:31 0MONT, 1177 the company and find out what was the matter. Ninety days went by, and I never got the policy. I asked him a dozen times about the policy, and in October I stopped him and says, 'Why didn't I get the policy? I haven't got it yet,' and he says, 'Is that so?' and I says, 'No.' A few days later he says he had the policy, lie never did anything about* it, In February he showed me the policy; that was nine or ten months after I made the application: !When he showed me the policy I asked him if it was for $25,000, and he said no, it was for $20,000. I told him that was not the policy I ordered. He said the policy was in force when I paid the first premium, and said after' the second premium was paid I would be entitled to $8,000, and I told him I did not order any policy like that. He told me it would be in force when I executed the note for the face of the policy. I asked him about the stock, and he said I would get it. I told him it was not satisfactory. He took it from my hand and put it in his envelope, and he never delivered it to me, and he never delivered me any stock. Two days later the bellboy came with a note with a check written out. I wouldn't sign the check, and then he told me he wanted me to sign the check; "it is important to the company ; we want to put that paper in advertising." I did not sign the check nor anything. No one ever delivered to me, this policy. I would,not have accepted it if they had delivered it. It is not the kind of policy I bought. At the time they sued out a writ of garnishment in this cause I had checks . outstanding. They were turned down on account of my money being garnished. "I talked to Mr. Hollan about the policy, and I told him I wanted $100,000. I finally told him I would take $25,000, and we talked about $25,000 all the time. He said if-I would sign the note my policy would be delivered in 30 days, but it was never delivered: Did not have a conversation in the Garrett Hotel, in the presence of Cubage and Claud Hollan, when he tendered me a policy for $20,000, and did not tell him as soon as a judgment was paid me I would pa7 it. Had conversations with
'ARK.] ' PYRAMID LIFE INSURANdE CO. V. BELMONT. 569 them, and knew‘Cubage. I told Hollan would not-have anything to do with it." . - This witness testified at length, kit the substance of it was that he wa4ed a poliCy for $25,000, and never_ did agree to take a policy for less than $25,000; that he Understood the face of the policy was to be paid, 'and afterwards found that the policy that HoHan -had was for $20,000 Only, and that it only provided for the payment of a portion. the first year, a larger portion. the second year, and the face of : the policy after that. Olaud Hollan testified that he represented the appellant; writing insurance for it, taking applications. That Belmont did hot apply for $25,000, brit applied 'for $20,000. That the note sued on was the one execrited Hollan pt the' time; and he also executed a .receipt--Which 'was introduced in evidence, which showed that Belmont. had paid to Hollan $1,611, and on the bottoin of it was written, ."Note $1,611," Signed "Henry B. Belmont." Tfook Belmont's application and sent it to the companY, and it was in the neighborhood of 90 days before he' got Poliey back from the company. When he got the policy the note was due. He called on Mr. Belmont and' told him he had his policy and his note' was due,. and Belmont said he could not paY the note. ."I told hiin to pay the •interest and we would reneW' the 'note, 'and he said he couldn't pay anything until he' got his money,' and' then he would pay . ' the:whole thing in ' advance. 1- told him it .would be three years before he got his stock, and he said he wanted to :pay . all three years up . when he gOt his money. I had this converSation withBelmont at the Oraj-7.- rett Hotel, in August, arid then, in the latter part—of September, tendered him the policy. Belmont . stated, 'You hold:the policy here.' " Witness sent the n6te back to the company. . Witness said he Met -Belmont in 'the lobby . Of' the hotel, took hirn up to his rooni, and' 'asked him-about the .payment . of the note, and Belmont said he' -Was drilling -a well 'out-south of toWn, and he says, "Jrist aS scion as I get the money out of that well, I *ill pay you, or if I
9 5 . 70 • P , YR • AM .. ID LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BELMONT. [177 get it out of my suit I will pay you." At that meeting, when he assured Witness he would have the money in a few days, witness asked him if he did not want to buy $1o0, I O po: He said, No, I have got $25,000 on the other," and says, "No, not $25,000, but $20,000," and he just fOlded the policy np and handed me the policy, and he .says,.".You keep the policy until I can make enough to pay off the note, but I won't take any more insurance now." Mr. Belmont at the second meeting read most of the policy over. The policy was issued between 40 and 90 days after the application was signed. The insurance was in effect at the time the nOte was taken. The insurance conapany is in'Little Rock, and the re-insurance company is in Des Moines, Iowa. "I gave him the policy with the Pyramid Life Insurance Company just like the other people receive. I offered to deliver this policy in August. His note was due at that time. Belmont handed the pol-i4 back to me to hold it mitil he paid the note. I was nOt holding it as security upon the note. The insurance was in force during all that time. When I gave hina the policY, he kept it long enough to reaa it, and handed it back to me." • Clybage testified thaC he Was in the Garrett Hotel, and , heard a conVersation between Hollan and Belmont, in which Hollan said, " When you- bring in that well, Want - to v■;-rite you . a policy for $100,000." Mr. Belmont said no, $25,000 Was enough fOr him, and Mr. Hollan said Ale only had $20,000, and went and got Belmont's Policy. Mr. Belmont said he thought it was $25,000, and said he did not want any more now. Mr. Belmont told Hollan just to keep the policy until he got his money, and-he would get the money soon, and he need not worry about it. We have set out the substance of the evidence, but it would serve no useful purpose to set it out in detail, but enough is set out to show the intention of the parties and the issues. The court, at the request of the appellant, instructed the jury as follows :
.] PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE -CO. V. Bii,MO141". "1. You are - instructed that, the defendant haling admitted the execution of the note sued on; the buiden is upon him to show by a preponderance of the evidenee'in this case that the same is without consideration, and,. unless you find from a Preponderance of the evidence in this case that no consideration was given fof the note sued upon or passed from the payee to the paYer,-.then you will find for the plaintiff. "2. You are instructed that if you find froth .' the evidence that the insurance policy waS issued by the plaintiff company on the life of Mr. Belmont, and that the same was tendered to him by the agent of the Plaintiff company,' and that the defendant asked the' plaintiff's agent to keeP the same for him until the note was paid, then you will find for the plaintiff the amount Of the note sued upon." "7. In determining whether or riot theie was a delivery of the policy in question, you are instructed that it is the intention of the parties and not the manual pOssession of the policy which controls, and if you find that an insurance policy was issued in the form applied for, and was accepted by the insured, being thereaftei tieated as in force by the parties, the delivery is coMplete, though it remain in the hands of the insurei's agent, and if you' do find that it was the intention of the parties that the contract should be considered in force, then your verdict should be for the plaintiff."' And the court refused to give the following initra6- lions requested by appellant: "3. You are instructed as a matter of law that the Consideration for the note given was the iSsuance of the insurance policy referred to, by the plaintiff uPon the life. of the defendant, and if yoh find that said in g urance policy was issued and was tendered to the defendant,- that is sufficient consideration to supbort the nOte; arid- ycou will find for the plaintiff. . . _ "4. You are instructed that, when the* insurance cOmpany issued its policy of insurance as applied for upon the life of H. B. Belmont, defendant in this case,
572 PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. BELMONT. [177 it became bound to pay the same in the event of his death, and whether there was manual delivery and actual taking possession of the policy by H. B. Belmont is not material to the validity of the note sued upon, and if you find that said policy was so issued upon the application of the -defendant, and that the defendant was notified thereof, then your verdict will be for the plaintiff. "5. You are further instructed that the test as to whether there was a valid consideration for the note is whether or not the insurance company, plaintiff herein, became bound to the beneficiary named in the policy at any, time to have paid the amount of the policy in event of the death of the defendant, and if the insurance company was bound to have paid the policy in the event of his death, then your verdict will be for the plaintiff. "6. You are further instructed that, if the insurance company, plaintiff in this case, acting upon. the application of- the . defendant, H. B. Belmont, and in con-siderati a on of the note sued . upon, actually executed the policy insurance, and tendered : it to the defendant, then die cornPany was liable for the amount of the policy in the event the defendant died during , the life thereof, or the period for_which said note was given to pay the premium, and your verdict will be for the plaintiff." The following instructions were given at the request of the appellee : . . "2. You are instructed that, unless you fmd from the evidence that plaintiff, Pyramid Life Insurance Company, issued to defendant a policy or certificate in the form applied for, and that the same was delivered to and accepted by defendant while he was in good health, your verdict should be for the defendant.", -"4. You are instructed that, if you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the agent of plaintiff life insurance company made any material misrepresentations to the defendant by which he was induced to execute, the application for insurance, either with reference to- the terms and conditions of the policy or certificate itself, , or with reference to the issuance and deliv-
PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BELMONT. 573 eryof ,stock in the plaintiff company, such misrepresentations, when discovered by defendant,'would be a complete justification for his refusing to accePt such policy pr. certificate ; and if you find that such:representations were made, your verdict should he.for the defendant." _ ,; • The jury returned a verdict for the defendant, .and the plaintiff filed motion for new trial, which was overruled, exceptions saved, and this appeal prosecuted to reverse . the judgment of the circuit court. , The appellant's first contention_ is that, under the undisputed testimony . in this case, the contract, of insurance was consummated upon the approval of the application by the company's medical director and became a . complete and binding contract without the issuance or the delivery of the policy. In the application signed •y. Belmont, which is made a part of the policy, is the. following clause : " That there ,shall be no . contract of insurance until a policy has been delivered to me , and the first premium paid to said company, or its duly authorized agent, during my lifetime and good ,health." The appellant says that this.was a part of the policy; It was attached to the policy, and it- was therefore the intention of the parties expressed, in writing that there should be no contract of insurance until the policy was delivered. ft therefore appears clear from the contract entered into that there was to be . no contract of insurance until the policy Was delivered: , • . , Suitwas brought on , a policy that contained the following statement in the application: "That if this application is accepted, the policy isSued hereunder -shall not take effect- until . the first premium .shall . have , been paid to . and accepted by said company or its authoriz,ed agent and such policy delivered to and accepted .12y,me,, and all during my continuance and while I am ,in good. health." The court, in construing this policy, said : ",It is elementary that delivery, either actual or constructiye, of an instrument of writing, of the character of this policy is essential to give it legal effect, and the :stipulatiOn quoted from the application for .the policy. in , px:press
574 PYRAMII) LIFE INSURANCE CO. v. BELMON. [1-77 . . terths Was that the Policy should riot take effect untir it g hould- be actually delivered to and accebted by the aPplicant. This was a clear and explicit agreeMent, the effeet of Which could not be Varied by Stewa,ft's intention that the poliCY should be effective as - glithi SS .; he eiecuted it. If he had actually tendered the PolicY, yet, under , the ternis of the agreement, it would not becothe completed contract until accepted by Melton', arid thefe was no evidence to show that he even intended to accePt if uritil after he was fatally ill, and which illness pre-chided his right then to demand-its delivery, aecOrdirig to the terias of his agreement with the Company." Anteri.- can . Home Life Ins. Co. v. Melton, 144 S. W. 362. In the instant case substantially the smile aghement was Made in the application signed by Belmont. It was expressly agreed that there should be ne contracf of irisnrance until the policY was delivered. It theiefore seenis clear - that the contiact made by the parties and theagreenient signed by Belmont and accepted by Hollan for . the company were to the effect that there should be no contract of insurance until the policy was delivered, and it-Was not offered to be deliVered for about 90 days: The understariding was that it should be delivered in 30 days. We do not agree with appellant that the contract of insurance was conuminated upon the approval a the application by the comPany's medical diiector and became a complete and binding contthet Without the issuance arid delivery of the policy, because the applica-tiOri itself expressly stated that it §hould not be a contract of insurance until the policy was delivered. Thefe-fOie, if Behriont had died after his application had been approved by the Medical director of the company, he corild not have recovered the amount of the policy. But appellant argues that a parol contract of insurance was entered into by the parties,- which was binding UPon the company When the application was approved by. the medical directoi, and that the issuaiice of the policy and delivery to Belment were not essential to the com-
ARK.] PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BELMONT. 575 pletion thereof. This contention is in the face of the policy itself, or the application which is attached to . and made part of the policy. a It is a well established nile that, whatever agreements may be made or whatever conversation or statements precede a written contract, when the writing is sighed, as it was in this instance, it takes the place of all the discussions and propositions preceding it. It is admitted by appellant that there is nothing in the application or in the policy to the effect that the insurance was to become effective 'upon the approval of the application by the medical director, but it insists that it was agreed that it should be effective from the date of the note and application. And the application provides for the medical examination, as well as the delivery of the policy, befoie it can become effective. It is true that contracts of insurance may be made by parol, and delivery of the policy iS not essential to the completion of the contract in such cases ; but that is where the minds of the insured and insurer, for a valuable consideration, have met on all the terms of the contract, the contract is complete and enforceable, even though it was intended by the parties to be evidenced by a policy which might' not be delivered before the death of the party. ' But that is where the intention of the parties is to make a contract of insurance by parol. Here it is expressly stated by the parties that this was not to be done. Besides, the minds of the parties must meet before any valid contract can be made. The appellee testifies positively that he made application for, and expected to get, a policy for $25,000; that no such policy was ever offered him. A part of the consideration for the note was also $1,000 stock in the company, which he never did get. The evidenCe is not disputed that the stock was to be given, and it is not -disputed that the policy was to be delivered within 30 days. There is a dispute about whether the policy was to be for $20,000 or $25,000, and this was a question of fact for the
5716 . 1E iRA1ID LIFE INSURANCE 00. v. BELMONT. [177 jury. Then, besides that, one of the instructions given at the request of the appellant waS as follows: "You are instructed that, if you find froM the evidence that the insurance policy Was issued by the plaintiff company on the life of Mr. Belmont, and .that the Same *as tendered to him by the agent of the plaintiff company, and that the defendant asked the plaintiff's agent to keep the same forhim until the note was paid, then you will"find for the plaintiff . the amount of the note sued upon.•!'i • It will be seen from this instruction that the question was submitted to the jury, • the very contention made by the appellant in the, case, and the jury found against it. y Appellant also asked, and the court gave, the following instruction: "In determining whether or not there was a delivery, of the policy in question, you are instructed.that it, is the ;intention 'Of 'the , parties and not the manual possession Of., the -policy which controls; and if you find:: that, an insurance-policy was issued in the form applied for and was accepted by the insured, being thereafter treatedd, as in JOrce by the parties, the deli:v , ery is complete, • though ,it reMaiii in the hands of the insurer's agent, and if You do, find that it was the intention of the parties that the contract , should be . considered in force, then your .verdiet oibod be for the plaintiff." So, , whether it was the intention of the partieS. to make the contract by parol or not, waS submitted fairly to the jury. As we have already said, .the .apOication, which was a part of the-policy, said that there should be nO bontraft until tho policy Was delivered. But, notWithstanding this, the court submitted the question to the jury Whether there was an intention for it to be in force before deliyery, and told the jury that, if this Was the intention, of the parties, -they should find for the plaintiff. . Appellant calls attention to the case of Jenki'its International:Life Ins. Co.,' 149 Ark. 258, 232 S. -W. 3. It iS true : that the court said in that case: "The general
ARK.] PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BELMONT. 577 doCtrine is that contracts of insurance may be made by parol, and, such being the case, of course delivery of the policy is not essential to the completion of the contract of insurance ; arid, where the minds of the insured and the insurer for a valuable consideration have met upon all the terms of the contract, the contract is complete and enforceable, even though it was intended by the parties to be evidenced by a policy, but which, because of some fortuity, was not delivered before the death of the insured." The court further said in the same case: "But, of course, the parties may agree, as a condition precedent to a complete and enforceable contract of insurance, not only that there shall be a delivery of the policy, but also a delivery while the insured is in good health." • Numbers of authorities are cited in the above ease, and there is no question about the rule in this State. But the record shows that the parties in the instant case agree that there should be no contract of insurance until the policy was delivered. Appellant also calls attention to the case of Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Parish, 66 Ark. 612, 52 S. W. 438. In that case the court said: _ "Whether a contract for insurance has been completed depends upon the question whether the respective parties have come to an understanding upon all the elements of the contract—the parties thereto, the subject-matter of • insurance, the amount for which it is to be insured, the limits of the risk, including its duration in point of time and extent in point of hazards assumed, the rate of premium, and, generally, upon all the circumstances which are peculiar to the contract and distinguish it from every other, so that nothing remains to be done but to fill up the policy and deliver it on the one hand, and pay the premium on the other." Some of the issues in this case, about which there is a conffict of evidence, were the terms of the contract. And these questions were submitted to the jury, and its verdict is controlling here.
578 PYRAMID LIFE INSURANCE CO. 'U. BELMONT. [177 Appellant next calls attention to Cooley's Brief 442, and to .7Etna Life Ivn,s. Co. v. Short, 124 Ark. 505, 187 S. W. 657, but there is nothing in either of these.authorities contrary to the rules above announced. Another case, and the last one to which appellant calls attention, is the case of Huntington, Ins. Agency v. Wyoming County Court, 98 W. Va. 352, 127 S. E. 64, 41 A. L. R. 642. In that case the court said, among other things: " Whether an insurance policy has or has not been delivered, after its issuance, so as to complete the contract and give it binding effect, does not depend upon its manual possession by the assured, but rather upon the intention of the parties, as manifested by their acts or agreements.. The manual possession of the thing which it is intended to deliver is a matter of little consequence. Such possession may exist without any legal delivery, and it may not exist where a legal delivery has been effected. The controlling question is, not who has the actual possession of the policy, but who has the legal right of possession." And, as we have already shown, the question of the intention of the parties was submitted to the jury by instructions requested by both parties, and the finding of the jury is conclusive here. In the notes to the above case, to which attention is called, a number of Arkansas cases are cited. Appellant argues that the undisputed testimony shows that the contract was completed, and insists that it appears that the company issued the kind of policy applied for, but we do not agree with appellant in the contention that the undisputed proof shows there was a completed contract, nor that the undisputed proof shows that the kind of policy applied for was issued. There is a sharp conflict in the testimony of Belmont and Hollan. Belmont swears very positively that it was not the kind of policy he applied for, and Hollan testified it was. This was one of the issues submitted to the jury. The application and agreement to take a $25,000 policy is not
ARK.] 579 . met by an offer to deliver a $20,000 policy. The minds of the parties must meet on all , the essential terms of an insurance contract, just as they are required to meet on the terms of other contracts. And, according to the testimony in this case, there was a dispute as to whether the minds of the parties met. The court properly instructed the jury, and there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. The judgment is therefore affirmed.
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.