# Appendix — Pan-American Life Insurance v. Theye y Ajuria > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_1742%3A3 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1964 - **Citation:** 377 U.S. 997 ## Text os . a Pat AYBENDIX ye | Monday, Feb. ZA, 1964.- SUPREME COURT OF es, "No. 46,902. CARLOS. MANUEL ‘THEYE Y AJURIA ae e : 2 3 . . : . PAN AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. © In re: CARLOS MANUEL THEYE Y AJURIA., APPLY. ING. FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT. FOURNET, Chief Justios. nay Mee Sah ‘Carlos Manuél Theye Y ‘Ajuria, a Cuban national now residing ‘in Florida’. instituted proceedings in the district court in Orleans Parish against Pan American Life Insurance Company, a Louisiana corporation, to recov er the cash surrender value of an insurance policy issued . by the defendant on the life of the plaintiff, which under the terms of the contract, had been con- verted into a fully paid-up. policy in June, 1942. He aso ‘prayed for penalties and attorapys fees. 8 In answer to the plaintiff's petition, the defendant . ~ a) denied: the policy was a Louisiana contract: and. governed. by ‘the, laws: of this ,state, insisting that the - 1 Plaintiff had lived in “Cuba until November, 1960, when, he was forced to flee “after Castro came to. power, ‘because of his: political beliefs: ° ° . ‘ : 14 e e . policy was in fact delivered to him by its agént in Cuba Se laws govern the performance thereof; and main- teled (2) that’ even if the original contract had been consummated in Louisiana, its situs had been. removed to Cuba bythe’ a¢tions of the ‘parties, the defendant having paid and the plaintiff having recevied the* per-- sistency bonus in 1948 in. Cuban, pesos, and the plaintiff having made and repaid in pesos three loans on the policy in 1948, 1950, and 1952: and (3) under our “Act. of State” doctrine and certain provisions of the Inter- national Monetary Fund, commonly known. as the Bret- ton Woods Agreement, a treaty to which Cuba and the. ~ United States are Signiories,; the laws of Cuba* passed since the ‘execution of the policy, involved herein govern. | el 2 Whereupon, the plaintiff filed a motion for a sum: ‘mary judgment onthe pleadings, exhibits, interroga- ‘tories and defehdant’s response thereto;. the motion . | was granted and the trial. judge awarded the plaintifi _ the sum of $7,090 as the cash. surrender value of the policy. This judgment was, reversed by the Court of ~ Appeal, Fourth Circuit, dismissing plaintiff's suit, 154 * In 1948 fre I Batista government passed Law No.. 13 which. . provided for the creation of the National Bank: of - Cuba and also that after 1951 only the Cuban peso& would be recognized as legal ténder. The Monetary Law.of 1951 required ali contracts payable ‘to or by Cuban nationals be paid in pesos and after Castro's ; rise to power, on September 29,. 1959, Law 568 was promulgatec, - prehibiting foreign corporations *doing business in Cuba from making paymems or crediting the accounts of Cuban nationals with any sums available to them except in Cuba, without the express authorization. of the National Bank of Cuba.. In June, 1960, Law Noa. 851 was adopted, providing for the nationaliza- tion through expropriation of all property in Cuba owned by United States nationals and pursuant to Resolution. Number 3. passed October 2G, 1960, defendant's. operations were expropriated and an administrator appointed by; the Cuban government was ? » Placed in charge, thereof. . ~~ - ° bd “ , . + and,” iy \ So. 3d 480. ‘The. matter is now before us on review | ona writ of certiorari Sigua on the application of the _ Plaintitt. a Bae e ~ @# . ‘The record reveajé that on May 14, 192% when plain-. tiff was thirty-one’ years of age, he applied fora life insurance policy through the defendant's agent in Ha-’ vana, to which was iittached payment of. ‘the first an- nual / premiurh, . -In due. time , the application was re- Pe and. accepted by the defendant in its home of- fice in ow Orleans;.the. policy was issued on May 22. . 1928, Sia mailed to its said agent in Cuba to be de- _livered ‘to the plaintiff. “All other annual premiums were -1iSO paid’ in United’ States ” currency until 1942 ° when the policy was conv erted ints a paid: up one It is “upulated ‘othe policy, a oO of which was ‘attacked to the plaintiff's» petition, that all premiums : are -pay able, in advance at the heme office of Ane: de- '., fendant and _upon presentation of the policy, it’ would “s * * pay at its Home Office in New Orleans, Louisiana, U. S.A. and upon presentation of due proof, of the déath * * ©) of the insured, ‘the proceeds of the e policy to the beneficiary. e = The trial judge in ‘his reasons for judgment. stated . “that. the obligation under the contract at the time it was issued and at the time_ it was converted was governed by the laws of the state of Louisiana and the laws and decrees of the Republic of Cuba passed subsequent td these events cquld have . no effect on the obligation) that existed | previously. In reversing a4 ry. . ‘ : =? the judgment of-the district court, the Court of Appeal waS of the opinion.that the Bretton: Woods Agreement vrohibited this country frém enforcing contracts Ww hich | would frustrate exchange control regulations | of san- ether member of the Agreement, and that‘ the Cuban : law requiring that payments between .the insured’ and ‘the insurer be mdde in Cuba in pesos was applicabie - to. the: policy under consider @tian, consequently, the | plaintiff was not entitled to recover the cash, surrender °. value of the policy from the defendant in any of the United States. os oats ne It is the settled jurisprudence cf: this ‘State, 2 rule of law universally obtaining, that “An insurance policy is a contract and the rules establis&ed Aor the cof- “struction of written instruments apply to contracts of insurance.” > Nyman “t. Monteleone-Iberrville Garage, 211 La. 375, 36 So. 34 123 and authorities cited th “And -@* * al the authorities agree that the law of the place of contract—lex loci contractus—as ‘distinguished from the lew of the’ forum, governs. ' The lex loci cen- tractus, it ‘is said, becomes as much a part of the con- tract as if specifically incorporated therein; axl al- though: the interpretation ¢ of the ianguage of a contract of insurance: 1s preeminently” a question as to the in-° tention of the parties, in the absence. of ‘evidence of a contrary Sitention the parfies must be held to -have con templated the application of that law to the terms | of their agreement, for the law of the state where: ‘a “contract of insurance is made is. necessarily w ithin the contemplation of the parties and must.be looked to.in -ascertaining tle terms? by which they agr@ed to be bouhds eas re ‘ ‘ { ‘ o . i pees ae | “When thé question of the plyc@ where a contract of | ©. insurance was made is solved, the. determinatian of : the questions as to the construction to be: placed upon’ the terms of the contract and as to the validity thereéf ‘and of the. laws whicl/are to gover n “such construction” rativ ely easy. because it is an and validity is com almost universal rule\that the éoniract of insurance must be governed -by the law of ghe ‘state where such contract is finally: consummated. * e * 29 Am. Jur.. Insurance, Sec. 30 and 31. ae i Under the express ‘provisions of the Revised Civil | Code, to be found in Section 5 of Chapter 3 of Title IV. under-the heading “Of the Interpretation of Agree- ments”, it is provided “That Courts are bound to giv e begal effect toni -*. * contracts according to the true intent of all the parties,” and such “*'* * intent’ is io be determined by the words of the contract, when these . ip - ure clear and explicit and lead te no: absurd conse- _— quences: Article 1945. In arriving at the ttent, of the parties “All clauses ‘of agredmints are interpreted the : ; . ene by the other, giving té each the sense that results ‘trom the entire act.” Arucie. 1955. ‘It is only when a clause is ‘susceptible of two ibateretntions that it must be understood in the’ sense&p which it mey have some effect rather than -a sense ‘that wou.d render it nuga- tory | Article 1951), and only in doubtful cases that. the agreement must’ he interpreted against the party eho con tracted the obligation, Article 1957. . ; : ; ea : : ’ A study and analysis of the policy and exhibits:con- ° AGined in the record leave no room for speculation as P ae a ee added. } to the intention of the parties which was stated in clear and unambiguous language; the plaintiff obligated him- self to pay all pretaiums due on ‘the policy at the home office of. the defendant, and after the policy was con-” verted into a ‘ful ly paid- -up one, it was the obligation of the defendant Company. to pay to the plaintiff the cash surrender value thereof upon his surrender of the policy at its office in New Orleans; alf transactians ‘were obvious!y intended te be negotiated in American ’ dollars.’ _ This is the‘ interpretation the defendant itself placed on the contract when it wrote to all of its policyholders in Cuba advising them in part: “At-the time your policy was issued; the laws of Cuba permitted the Pan Ameri can Life Insurance Company to issue i PAYABLE ne [! nited States curreney and to reteive payment of pre- ins in Cuba in that currency. The. Republic of Cuba. has new enacted Law tor 4848 and under its terms the Government of that country has issued. DeécTee No. 1348 of 1951 providing that the Cuban Nationalgurrency shall be the only lega! tender currency in Cubs It is theretoge impossible for us to continue to accept pay- ment of U.S. Doilars in Cuba’ and if- yor 4 desire to cen- “tinue -the phiyment of “your premiums in dollars they must be paid to the Home Office.in New Orleans, Lou- isiana, as required’ by your Con Fact,” "(Emphasis e We think. therefore, _the ‘trial. judge properly con- cluded thai the laws and decrees of the Republic of Cu ba passed subsequent ty the mate the polic’ became ry & on % * owen. ; ee the situs thereot had been removed ton a paid-up policy can have no effect upon the obligation which existed. at that time. ee ee The conienusn or the detendant that even) if the original contract had been consumm ted in Lguisidna when the detendant paid and the plaintiff received the persis’ ency bonus -in ‘1946.1n -pesos and the plaintiff received “star aiel three foans.he’made-on the policy in 1948, 1956 and “1952 and uuquidated them with Cuban pesos, 15 clearly without: merit. There is nothing in these trans- actions that would indicate that the’ plaintiff in so acting dither in receiving the bonus cr making the loans intended to abrogate er) modity his contract witn the ‘defendant Company.’ Moreover, the Company has failed to indicate any such intention on its part in thy “manner | required ‘by the contract, which specificalls provides under the, heading of “CONSTRUCTION, OF CONTRACT” the policy could neither ‘*:* *‘be changed nor modified except with the written consent of the Company signed .by the President, Vice-President, Secretary or Actuary. * ; , Counsel's last argument jis that the effect of Arucle VIII. Sec. 2 (b)* of the Articies ol Agreement of the International Monétar\ Fund, whick, were formulated —— ‘ : \\ “Exchange ‘contracts which invaive the currency “of any member and which are contrary to the exchange cantrol regula- tions of that membez maintained or Lmpose: { consistentiv with ‘this Agreement shal! be unenferceabla in the verritomes of any member. In-addition, members may, by mutual accdrd, cooperate in’ megsures for the purpose o} ‘making thes exchange con-ro! reguiations af either member more. effective, provided that such measures and regulations are consistent with this ‘Agreement Article VIIT. Sec. 2. (b) ‘International Monetary Fund QO: 20 at the United. Nations Monetary and Financial €on- ference in Jaly, 1944 at Brétton Woods, New Hamp shire, ‘signed at Washington, December 27, 1948; ac: cepted by the Unsted States ‘of, America December 20), i945, and which became effective December 27, 1945, is to divest the courts of the United States ‘oft authorits to enterce the obligations ot the plainuff's contract. . py ; : Conceding that Cuba hac adopted the Articles thereo! as part of its national law as alleged by the defendant, ‘an exhaustive study of the Bretton Woods Agreement, as well as all authorities relied.on by the detendant : fails to show’ Ww here the Agreement or any of the cases are contrelling under “the particular facts of the case vat bar inasmuch as a contract payable in the State. of . Louisiana in United States currency is not 2 foreign exchange contract. In Blanco v. Pan America n Life Insurance Compéuy, 221 F. Supp. 219. see also 311 K 2d 424, the same de-- fenses to claims by polievholder Blanco and. othe: . Cuban retugees were urged therein as here, and in sup- pert thereof. the defendant cited the Court of Appeal! opinion in the case at bar. That court conci tuded, how- ever, that - ‘Federal courts are not bound by ‘state de- cisions in interpreting, a federal question and disposed oO} the matter by holding the Bretton Woods Agreement had no applicability “in that case because the Cuban .. _government lost _w hatever jurisdiction it possessed over not~orly_ the subject: matter of the ligation but. also over. the persons of the plaintiffs when they fled from Cuba, ‘became alien residents of the United States,” po- © liticial citizens of nowhere, but civil citizens of Florida as they were domiciled there. The court further re-- marked “* * * these laws (relied on by defendant) do not appl to cover the situation of a Cuban national enforcing an executory contract in the forum of a. > othe: qurisdiction, according to. the-terms of ‘an obliga- ‘tion existing prior to the passage of thosé laws. Further, we do not ‘believe that such laws and decrees can have _— ee any: force and effect over the persons of these htigants — who, are rot only without Cuba, but. as refugees, are not subject to its in personam | juris sdiction. ie, Slia “se Moreover, courts, including those of this country as “well as those of foreign jurisdictions, in- interpreting contracts involving matters affected by ‘the Bretton Woods. Agreement are uniform in their holding that “the laws of the state or nation’ Ww here the parties intended the contract to be performed tovern. Rodriguez v . Pan. : American Life Insurance Company, 311 F. 2d 439, Pan “Ameriean Life Insurance Company rv. Recio. 154 So. 2d 197 (Florida): Pan American Life Insurance Company - Raij, 156 So. 2d 78% (Florida); Menandez ~. :Aetne Insurance Company, 311 F. 2d 482: Ahmen Pay. Ndquih ». Hetrs. of Moise Abner, abstract appears in 4 T- M. No — Nov. 24 25; 1948; Kraus v. ae Gi N. Y. Supp. 2d 208. 187 Misc. 681: watt slp et al. Bt. Akeiora Spoiecrost 80 N. ¥ Supp 2d 782: Frav - man.v. Ango-Pragque Credit Bunk (London office) 1 All. E. R. 337: Frankeman v. Ango-Prague Credit Bank ; All E. R. +1025; PRI Banka National Corporat iar {+ Frenkman, 2 All E.R. 47] a a nha , Wind up in kis oe We find ‘untenable the suggestion of counse! that this court t should aw ait the United States Supreme Court's action in regard to several cases ‘pending before it on. applications for writs, and wherein the applicability a the “Act pf State” doctrine in controvetsies similar to controlling, betore we, resolve this matter. To requife this refugee, who is in a strange’ land and. possibly in: dire need, to wait indefinitely for a fina! adjudication Mf. his claim would be a travesty.on justice. and awe think it ‘ould ° be folly‘ to sugvést that he return to Cuba, tor his “éftart to sec ure . relief there might wel “liquidation.” , Defendant's contention that this is not « case fo! summary judgment, as well as the argument in support thereof, is unimpressive under the tacts of the case We note that in the very last paragraph. ofher briet plaintiff's. counsel! cal! attention to the fact the judg ent of the trial @ourt should be reinstate@ “wath a ‘jowatnse for attornew tees and ex cpenses Incurred by” . ~~, plaintiff, “Ng authority im support of these claims has been, cited, an® *e knew of-none, Hencethis request * 3 * ‘ must be disallowed u ; wer ek ; For the reasdns assigned, the judgment of the district ,court is. affirmed Defendant is to pay wll costs . eet ay . : ey a Ss es me a eo ne estore _ the case. at barvis’ mveived™ and wuld, therefore, De eee + --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385601_1742%3A3. Public record. Not legal advice.