AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, by and thru its Authorized Officer, Appellant, v. FAWZI K. AJAMI, Appellee.
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, MONTSERRADO COUNTY.
Heard: April 21, 1994. Decided: September 22, 1994.
1. Even though a law exists which declares the US dollar and the Liberian dollar to be equal, and either is legal tender to discharge an obligation, yet, such declaration gives no right to a party to discharge his obligation in Liberian dollars where said party has contracted to the contrary to discharge his obligation in United States dollars.
2. The Revenue and Finance Law grants the right to parties to agree upon the currency with which to discharge their obligation.
3. When a party contracts to discharge his obligation in a currency, he is bound to adhere strictly to that obligation notwithstanding the law which permits an obligation to be discharged in either of the two currencies which are legal tender in Liberia.
4. A party seeking to recover upon a claim may move for summary judgment in his favour on all or part of said claim within the time specified therefor by law, and the court shall grant such summary judgment if the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party in whose favour judgment is granted is entitled to it as a matter of law. Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1:11.3.
5. Even though the Court must grant a motion for summary judgment if there is no justiciable issue of fact presented which warrants a trial by the court, it must, however, exercise extreme care in granting the motion.
6. The granting of a motion for summary judgment after it has been ruled to jury trial by another judge, does not have the effect of reviewing, modifying or rescinding the ruling of a colleague judge who passed upon the law issues and ruled the case to trial, where the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party in whose favour judgment is granted is entitled to it as a matter of law.
Appellant, the American Life Insurance Company appealed from a ruling granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of appellee in an action of damages for breach of contract instituted by appellee, the beneficiary under a ten-year endowment insurance policy. According to the records, the American Life Insurance Company, upon maturity of the endowment policy, informed the appellee that the maturity proceeds for said policy will be paid in local currency (Liberian dollar) which has a par value with the US dollar and the official medium of exchange for business transaction in Liberia. When no agreement could be reached on the question of the currency in which the insurance proceeds will be paid, appellee filed an action of damages for breach of contract in the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County against appellant. In disposing of the law issues, the presiding judge ruled the matter to trial, holding among other things that even though a law exists which declares the US dollar and the Liberian dollar to be equal and either is legal tender to discharge an obligation, yet, such declaration gives no right to a party to discharge his obligation in Liberian dollars where said party has contracted to discharge his obligation in United States dollars. When the case was called for trial, Judge Reeves, who was then presiding over the Civil Law Court, granted a motion for summary judgment in plaintiffs favour on the ground that there existed no doubt whatsoever regarding the contractual obligation of the parties to the insurance contract to warrant a trial and that appellant was, as a matter of law, entitled to judgment. Appellant excepted to this judgment and announced an appeal to the Supreme Court. On appeal, appellant contended that summary judgment cannot be granted after the matter has been ruled to trial, and that where the motion is granted, it has the effect of reviewing, modifying or rescinding the ruling of a colleague judge who passed upon the law issues and ruled the case to trial.
The Supreme Court, upon review of the records, upheld the ruling of Judge Pearson on the law issues with respect to the currency, and opined that when a party contracts to discharge his obligation in a currency, he is bound to adhere strictly to .that obligation notwithstanding the law which permits an obligation to be discharged in either of the two currencies which are legal tender in Liberia. With respect to the granting of a summary judgment, the Court held that there existed no justiciable issue which warranted a trial and therefore plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law. As to appellant’s claim that by granting the motion for summary judgment the trial judge rescinded her colleague ruling which ruled the case to jury trial, the Court held that the judge acted within the province of the law which allows for the granting of summary judgment where the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party in whose favour judgment is granted is entitled to it as a matter of law. Accordingly, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment.
J. D. Gordon appeared for appellant. B. Mulbah Togbah and Parlee Kwekwe appeared for appellee.
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BULL delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is on appeal before us from a final decision rendered by Judge Charlene A. Reeves, granting a motion for summary judgment in an action of damages for breach of contract instituted by one Fawzi K. Ajami against the American Life Insurance Company.
The insured, Fawzi K. Ajami, is the beneficiary under a ten year endowment insurance policy for which he paid annual premium in the sum of US$2,263.80. The value of this policy when fully paid up at the end of the ten-year period is US$20,000.00. The policy was taken up by the insured on April 15, 1979 and matured ten years later on April 15, 1989. Upon maturity of the said policy, the insurer, American Life Insurance Company, addressed a letter to the insured dated May 30, 1989, informing him that his policy had matured and invited him to come to their offices to sign for and take delivery of the cash value of his policy. In the same letter, Mr. Ajami was requested to bring along with him his policy document and was also informed that the maturity proceeds for said policy will be paid to him “in local currency (Liberian dollar) which has a par value with the US dollar and the official medium of exchange for business transaction in Liberia”. The American Life Insurance Company in the same letter congratulated Mr. Ajami and thanked him for doing business with that company.
On August 29, 1989, one month later, Mr. Ajami’s lawyer ad-dressed a letter to the American Life Insurance Company which stated that the terms of the insurance contract between his client and the company were clear that upon maturity of the endowment policy, its value would be US$20,000.00 and that as such this is the payment his client would accept.
When no agreement could be reached between the insured and the insurer, American Life Insurance Company, the insured, Fawzi K. Ajami, filed an action of damages for breach of contract in the Civil Law Court for Montserrado County. In his action, plaintiff demanded payment from the Insurance Company of the sum of US$20,000.00. After pleadings rested, the law issues in this matter were passed upon by His Honour J. Henric Pearson who was presiding over the December A.D. 1989 Term of the Civil Law Court.
The pleadings in this matter, which form the basis for Judge Pearson’s ruling on the law issues, present one basic issue which claimed the presiding judge’s attention. That is, the question of the legal obligation of the parties to adhere to the terms of the insurance contract as the same is clearly expressed.
In deciding this issue Judge Pearson averred that even though a law exists which declares the US dollar and the Liberian dollar to be equal and either is legal tender to discharge an obligation, yet, such declaration gives no right to a party to discharge his obligation in Liberian dollars where said party has contracted to discharge his obligation in United States dollars. In fact, the judge observed that the Revenue and Finance Law grants the right to parties to agree upon the currency with which to discharge their obligation. Section 71.5 Revenue and Finance Law, page 298 (1979). We believe that Judge Pearson correctly identified and passed upon this basic issue.
This Court, in a recent opinion in United States Trading Company (USTC) v. Wray, 37 LLR 376, decided in the October A. D. 1993 Term of the Supreme Court, held “that when a party contracts to discharge his obligation in a currency, he is bound to adhere strictly to that obligation notwithstanding the law which permits an obligation to be discharged in either of the two currencies which are legal tender in Liberia”.
When this damage suit was called for trial in the Civil Law Court presided over by Judge Charlene A. Reeves, plaintiff’s counsel made a motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s favour on the ground that there existed no doubt whatsoever regarding the contractual obligation of the parties to the insurance contract. The relevant factual issues which the pleadings presented were the ones raised by the defendant; firstly, that the receipts which the plaintiff relied upon as evidence of having paid the full amount of the premiums did not show that said premiums were paid in United States dollars as the insurance contract provided. The other issues were that the United States dollar and the Liberian dollar are equal in value and may be used to satisfy any obligation. With respect to this latter fact, there is no doubt that there is a law that declares the Liberian dollar to be on par with the United States dollar, and that either may be used to discharge a party’s obligation. This Court takes judicial notice of the existence of such law.
Reverting to the first factual issue, it is true that the face of each of the receipts which the insurance company issued to the insured does not show that the amount paid was United States dollar. Each of these receipts however does show that the amounts were paid in dollars as can be seen from the dollar sign preceding each of the amount paid. It is reasonable to presume, as we believe the trial judge also presumed, that when the insurance company’s representative issued the receipt said representative was satisfied that payments were made in accordance with the contract. It is not foreseeable how this fact can be controverted.
From the records before us we believe that the determination of this appeal however, must rest upon two basic issues. They are:
1. Whether summary judgment may be awarded after a matter has been ruled to trial on the facts; and
2. Whether the granting of a summary judgment has the effect of reviewing, modifying or rescinding the ruling of a colleague judge who passed upon the law issues and ruled the case to trial.
The other issue raised in the appeal, that is to say whether one currency can take precedence over another currency which is also legal tender is not essential for the determination of this appeal even though we have commented on this issue above.
We would like to stress however, that the question of the parity of the United States dollars and the Liberian dollar is one that continues to appeal in quite a number of appeal cases that have come up before this Court in the past year. In deed, this issue is one that claims the attention of every citizen and resident in this Country, the solution to which they are looking anxiously to this Court to produce. This Court is not insensitive to this issue but we are not obliged to make a determination of the same unless the issue is presented squarely before us in a particular matter. This has not yet been done and, as mentioned above, we do not consider it important in determining the principal issues which this case on appeal presents.
Let us now address these basic issues which we believe must decide this case. Under our Civil Procedure Law, “a party seeking to recover upon a claim may move for summary judgment in his favour on all or part of said claim within the time specified therefor by law, and the court shall grant such summary judgment if the court is satisfied that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party in whose favour judgment is granted is entitled to it as a matter of law”. Civil Procedure Law, Rev. Code 1: 11.3
The Court must grant a motion for summary judgment if there is no justifiable issue of fact presented which warrants a trial by the court. However, a court must exercise extreme care in granting a motion for summary judgment. In the instant case, all of the triable issues of facts have not been denied by the parties but have been admitted in their respective pleadings either by averments or through exhibits. Therefore, no triable issues exists and the matter would have to be decided on the law. The granting of summary judgment in such cases is proper since the moving party’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt. 49 C.J.S., Judgments, § 220.
We therefore hold that in this matter on review there exists no justiciable issue which warrants trial and therefore plaintiff was entitled to a summary judgment as a matter of law.
With respect to appellant’s claim that by granting the motion for summary judgment the trial judge rescinded her colleague’s ruling which ruled the case to jury trial, it is the opinion of this court that the judge acted within the province of the law which allows for the granting of summary judgment where the court is satisfied that there is no “genuine issue as to any material fact and that the party in whose favour judgment is granted is entitled to it as a matter of law”. Clearly from the facts in the record before us there is no genuine issue as to any material fact. The parties admit that a policy of insurance exists between them which calls for payment of premium in United States dollars and that when the policy reaches maturity the insured shall receive payment of its value also in United States currency. The exhibits for receipts issued by the Insurance Company’s representative to the insured for premium payments made by him show that he paid the amount of premium specified in the policy. These are the essential facts in this case which have not been disputed by the parties. Therefore, as a matter of law, plaintiff, the insured, is entitled to receive the value of his policy. The judge who passed upon the law issues did not decide to the contrary. In point of fact, Judge Pearson in his ruling said that the Insurance Company was estopped to deny its obligation to pay the value of said policy in United States dollars. No ruling made by the judge who passed upon the law issues were modified, reviewed or rescinded by Judge Reeves who sat upon the trial of this case.
In view of the foregoing, it is our holding that the judgment of the court below granting the motion for summary judgment which adjudged defendant below liable to pay to plaintiff the policy value in the sum of US$20,000.00 plus interest at 6% is hereby affirmed. The Clerk of this Court is hereby ordered to send a mandate to the court below commanding the judge presiding therein to resume jurisdiction over this case and give effect to this opinion. Costs are assessed against appellant. And it is hereby so ordered.
Judgment affirmed.