Cobb v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance
51 P.2d 84, 4 Cal. 2d 565, 1935 Cal. LEXIS 582 (1935)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to a unilateral contract for the payment of money in future installments. An insured party may not recover the present value of all future benefits when an insurer repudiates a disability policy; recovery is limited to installments that have already accrued.
Facts:
- In 1926, Augustus M. Cobb purchased a life and disability insurance policy from The Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company.
- In August 1929, this policy was replaced with two new policies, one of which was a noncancellable income policy providing for monthly payments of $250 in the event of total disability.
- On March 14, 1932, Cobb became wholly, permanently, and incurably disabled from encephalitis, also known as sleeping sickness.
- Cobb provided notice of his disability to Pacific Mutual and demanded the monthly payments as per the policy.
- Pacific Mutual repudiated the contract entirely, giving written notice of rescission and offering to return all premiums paid.
- The company's reason for repudiation was that Cobb allegedly made fraudulent misrepresentations and concealed information about his health when applying for the 1929 policy.
Procedural Posture:
- Augustus M. Cobb sued The Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company in the trial court, seeking both accrued monthly payments and a lump-sum judgment for future payments based on his life expectancy.
- Pacific Mutual filed a cross-complaint seeking rescission of the policy on the grounds of fraud.
- The jury returned a verdict for Cobb, awarding him damages based on the present worth of future payments for his life expectancy.
- The trial court, treating the verdict as advisory, entered a judgment for Cobb in the lump sum of $30,830, finding the insurance contract valid and breached by the insurer.
- Pacific Mutual, as appellant, appealed the judgment to the District Court of Appeal.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the portion of the judgment awarding a lump sum for future damages but affirmed the finding that the policy was valid, remitting Cobb to recovery of accrued installments only.
- Cobb, as petitioner, sought and was granted a hearing before the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an insurer's repudiation of a disability insurance policy, which provides for monthly indemnity payments, constitute an anticipatory breach that allows the insured to sue for and recover a lump sum representing the present value of all future payments over the insured's life expectancy?
Opinions:
Majority - Seawell, J.
No. The doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to this type of insurance contract, and therefore the insured cannot recover a lump sum judgment for the present value of future payments. Once the insured became disabled, the bilateral contract became unilateral because the insured had fully performed his obligations, with the only remaining duty being the insurer's obligation to make periodic payments. The court holds that there can be no anticipatory breach of a unilateral contract for the payment of money in installments. Citing its own precedent in Brix v. Peoples Mutual Life Ins. Co. and the great weight of authority, the court reasoned that such contracts are analogous to promissory notes with installment payments, where a default on one payment only gives rise to a cause of action for that specific payment, not the entire future amount. To rule otherwise would unfairly penalize an insurer for asserting a good-faith, albeit unsuccessful, defense to a claim.
Analysis:
This decision firmly establishes in California the majority rule that the doctrine of anticipatory breach does not apply to unilateral installment contracts for the payment of money. By limiting recovery to accrued payments, the court prevents speculative, lump-sum awards based on life expectancy and protects insurers from massive, immediate liability when they raise a good-faith challenge to a claim. The ruling reinforces a crucial distinction in contract law: while anticipatory breach applies to bilateral contracts where obligations remain on both sides, it is inapplicable once one party has fully performed and the only remaining duty is the other's periodic payment of money. This precedent significantly impacts litigation strategies for both insureds and insurers in disability and annuity contract disputes.
