ON THE LAW OF INSURANCE OF EVERY KIND BY JOSEPH A. JOYCE OF THE NEW YORK, CALIFORNIA, AND CONNECTICUT BARS SECOND EDITION IN FIVE VOLUMES VOL. III THE LAWYERS CO-OPERATIVE PUBLISHING CO. ROCHESTER, N. Y. 1917 LAW OF INSURANCE CHAPTER XL. THE PREMIUM-PAID-UP AND NONFORFEITABLE POLICIES. § 1178. Paid-up and nonforfeitable policies: extended insurance: gen erally. § 1178a. Paid-up, extended and temporary insurance distinguished. § 1178b. Invalid contracts: surrender value: paid-up policies: loans. § 1179. Nonforfeiture statutes. § 1179a. Such statutes constitutional. § 1179b. Whether policy becomes automatically paid-up: extended in surance. § 1179c. Forfeiture rule not applicable to policy stipulating for loan value charge: "automatically nonforfeitable" clause. § 1180. Death as affecting right to paid-up policy. § 1180a. Insanity as affecting right to paid-up policy. § 1181. When only paid-up policy can be claimed, and when the full amount of insurance. § 1181a. Paid-up policy: surrender cannot defeat beneficiary's rights. § 1182. Right to claim paid-up policy: demand: surrender value. § 1183. Right of infants: paid-up policy. § 1183a. Paid-up policy: husband and wife. § 1184. When right to claim paid-up policy must be exercised. Right to paid-up policy must be exercised within specified time. Exceptions to last rule and cases contra. § 1185. § 1186. § 1187. § 1188. Whether payment of note required to entitle to paid-up policy. § 1189. When paid-up policy not forfeited: cases. § 1190. Whether it is new contract or continuation of old one. § 1191. § 1192. Amount of premium under statutes "deducting indebtedness." § 1193. Endowment policy: nonforfeiture statutes. § 1194. Refusal to issue paid-up policy. 1195. Refusal to issue paid-up policy: measure of damages. tracts made thereunder,19 nor are such statutes retroactive.20 This is in conformity with general principles, and a statute is to be deemed retrospective or retroactive where it takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect to transactions or considerations already past,1 unless a policy is issued in violation thereof. Such statutes are a part of the contract of insurance, although it is held that a statutory provision that every contract of life insurance shall contain a provision for the application of the reserve to the purchase of extended insurance in case of forfeiture or nonpayment of premiums, under penalty of having the license of insurer withdrawn, does not become part of an insurance policy which does not contain the provision. Whether the provisions of such statutes can be waived by agreement is doubtful. The statute is, however, undoubtedly for the benefit of the assured; its purpose is merely to establish a rule which shall enable the assured to reap the full benefit of premiums paid before default on his part, and at the same time to secure to the insurance company, in case it is obliged to pay, the full amount of the premiums which the terms of the policy call for.5 The general rule applicable to waiver of statutory provisions has, however, been already considered. Such statutes apply to foreign companies doing. business in the state under compliance with its laws. A proviso in a statute governing the adjustment of claims upon life insurance policies forfeited for nonpayment of premiums, that "in no instance shall a policy be forfeited after the payment of 3 Nelson v. Provident Savings Life Assurance Soc. 139 Cal. 332, 73 Pac. 168, rev'g 66 Pac. 663 (construing also the New York statute as to extended insurance). Equitable Life Assurance Soc. v. Babbitt, 11 Ariz. 116, 13 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1046 (annotated on effect of statute providing for application of reserve to the purchase of paid-up insurance, 89 Pac. 531. See §§ 194 et seq. herein. When attached note as to paid-up policy is part of policy. See Jander v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. 16 Ohio Cir. Ct. Rep. 536, 40 Wkly. L. Bull. 536. 5 Carter v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co. 127 Mass. 153 (statement made by the court in arguing). See Cravens v. New York Life Ins. Co. 148 Mo. 583, 53 L.R.A. 305, 50 S. W. 519, aff'd New York Life Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 178 U. S. 389, 44 L. ed. 116, 20 Sup. Ct. 762, 29 Ins. L. J. 876. See §§ 194 et seq. herein, "whether common or statutory law part of contract," and cases therein. 7 Morris v. Penn Ins. Co. 120 Mass. 503. |