Brix v. Peoples Mutual Life Insurance

DOOLING, J.,

pro

tem.

This is an appeal from an order denying a motion for change of venue from San Francisco to Los Angeles County. The action was brought upon, a policy of accident insurance issued by defendant and appellant, a corporation. ' At the time the policy was issued and at the time the accident to the insured occurred the principal place of business of appellant was in San Francisco,

[66]

but prior to the time suit was brought appellant transferred its principal place of business to Los Angeles County.

Under section 16 of article XII of the state Constitution a corporation may be sued upon a contract, among other places, “in the county where the contract is made”. If the contract of insurance here sued upon was made in San Francisco, the order appealed from must be affirmed.

The application for the policy here in question was signed by respondent at Valley Springs, California, and forwarded by appellant’s resident agent there to appellant’s San Francisco office. The policy of insurance was executed by appellant in San Francisco and mailed to its agent at Valley Springs with instructions not to deliver it to respondent unless respondent paid the premium and was in good health. Pursuant to these instructions the policy was delivered to respondent by the agent at Valley Springs. It is appellant’s contention that the contract was made at Valley Springs by delivery to respondent there. It is respondent’s position that the contract was made in San Francisco when the policy was signed by the appellant’s officers.

The application contained the two following provisions:

“21. I agree that there shall be no insurance in force until the policy is issued and accepted by me while I am in good health and free from injury and I have paid the policy fee, if any, and the full premium as stated in the policy.

“22. I agree that policy, if issued, shall be in force at 12 o’clock noon, standard time, the date of issuance.”

At first blush it may seem that these two provisions are in hopeless conflict. However, they must be reconciled, if possible so as to give them both a reasonable effect. (Sec. 1652, Civ. Code; 6 Cal. Jur., p. 280, sec. 172.)