stipulation, that the circumstances of this case do not bring the defendant within the exemption contracted for. * * *
“Reading the whole policy, we deem the intention of its various provisions with regard to the restrictions concerning military or naval service to be clear. The express intention does, in reality, conform to the purpose of the provision as stated in the deposition of an officer, of the company, namely, to except the policy from applying where the insured has come to his death from a hazard connected with military or naval service. In short, the status of the insured is not made the test, but the character of the service. The important words in the clause relied upon and those which signify its correlation with the other provisions hereinbefore referred to are 'while engaged in military or naval service.' These words are descriptive of two forms of hazardous service that are not intended to be covered, and it is only while the insured is engaged in such service that the exemption is applicable. It is idle to say that because one’s status is such that he must respond to orders from military or naval authority, he is in military or naval service within such a provision, when in fact there is nothing about his daily activities that suggests the least physical danger that would enhance an insurance risk.”
That language and reasoning is directly applicable to the case now before us. It is idle to say that, because the insured here died in the hospital, from influenza, his death was caused by military service.
Thirdly. The defendant had notice and knew that the insured was in military service, and thereafter it received payment of assessments and lodge dues, with full knowledge of this fact. Hence it waived any defense, if any it had, with reference to the insured entering the prohibited occupation of military service, unless under conditions specified in the foregoing provision. It is therefore estopped to assert that defense.
For the foregoing reasons, the court did not err in refusing to render judgment for the plaintiff for the sum of $200 as requested by the defendant and appellant, and did not err in ordering judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1145.90.
The judgment appealed from should be affirmed.
