States, 6 Cir., 1953, 201 F.2d 398 at page 401.
The Cleveland case at page 400 of 201 F.2d states that '* * * administrative practice is to honor a request to make an application effective the first day of the month following instead of immediately.' Although the insured was advised as to the allocation herein intended by the VA,
no such request was made by the insured and the usual rule was applied.
The terms of the contract and the rights and liabilities of the parties under it are fixed by the Act, and the authorized administrative regulations promulgated in conformity with the Act. See Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571 at page 577, 54 S. Ct. 840, 78 L. Ed. 1434; White v. United States, 270 U.S. 175 at page 180, 46 S. Ct. 274, 70 L. Ed. 530; Jones v. United States, 8 Cir., 1951, 189 F.2d 601, 602.
The regulations adopted in compliance with the Act have the full force and effect of law, Id. Magruder v. United States, D.C., 31 F.2d 332, and form a part of the insurance contract. Ross v. United States, 5 Cir., 1931, 49 F.2d 541; United States v. Fitch, 10 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 471. As to the interpretation thereof, see United States v. Zazove, 334 U.S. 602 at page 610, 68 S. Ct. 1284, 92 L. Ed. 1601.
The construction placed upon the statute by those charged with administering it is ordinarily presumed to be correct and will not be judicially otherwise construed, except for strong and compelling reasons. Washburn v. United States, D.C., 63 F.Supp. 224; United States v. Citizens Loan & Trust Co., 316 U.S. 209, 214, 62 S. Ct. 1026, 86 L. Ed. 1387.
Contrary to plaintiff's contention, 38 C.F.R. (1941 Supp.) § 10.3414 specifically provides that the policy remain in effect during the grace period. It does not however extinguish the obligation to pay the premium therefor, e.g., '* * * if the policy shall mature within the grace period, the unpaid premium or premiums shall be deducted from the amount of insurance payable.' Requiring payment for the grace period is in accord with the regulations and historical practice. See Kerr v. United States, 1939, 71 App.D.C. 222, 108 F.2d 585; United States v. Norton, supra, 77 F.2d at page 732; Wilber Nat. Bank v. United States, 1935, 294 U.S. 120, 55 S. Ct. 362, 79 L. Ed. 798; Cleveland v. United States, supra, 201 F.2d at page 401; and see Collier v. United States, supra, 90 F.Supp. at pages 219, 220, 221.
In our opinion the provisions of the regulations in this regard, of the Manual, and the historical practice are reasonable requirements completely in accord with § 602(p) of the Act. Such being so, plaintiff's case must fall.
In passing, we are in complete accord with the requirement that the applicant pay the premium for the current premium month at the time of application. In this respect we agree with Cleveland v. United States, supra, and disagree with the reasoning of the Collier case -- and the authorities therein cited -- however much the result may be justified by the finding of fact that the insured intended that reinstatement commence at a later date.
We differ as to the interpretation of and inferences drawn from § 602(p). As to the effective date of new insurance, see and cf. VA regulation, 38 C.F.R. (1941 Supp.) § 10.3402 a, b, c, with d. At all events there is a distinction between a new policy and a reinstatement. See Cleveland v. United States, supra; Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed., p. 1520; United States ex rel. Lyons v. Hines, 1939, 70 App.D.C. 36, 103 F.2d 737 at page 742, 122 A.L.R. 674.
Of course, reinstatement does not occur until the Administrator approves. James v. United States, 4 Cir., 1950, 185 F.2d 115, 22 A.L.R.2d 830; United States v. Fitch, supra, 185 F.2d 471. Notwithstanding the date of approval of reinstatement, there is nothing to prevent making the insurance effective as of a prior date. See Note 8 and Cleveland v. United States, supra; Huckaby v. United States, 5 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 307 at page 308; and granting protection during that period. See Brown v. United States, D.C. 1928, 29 F.2d 856.
The court in the Collier case cites MacDonald v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 304 Pa. 213, 155 A. 491, 492, 77 A.L.R. 353, but see note in 167 A.L.R. 333, superseding the annotation in 77 A.L.R. 353, pointing out the distinction between life and accident policies. 'Whether the period of coverage under a revived or reinstated insurance policy is retrospective or prospective, whether it dates back to date of default, or begins anew from the time of application for reinstatement or a subsequent date, depends, in a large measure, upon the type and class of insurance provided by the particular policy and the terms and provisions of the policy relative to reinstatement.'
As to the MacDonald case, see Rothschild v. New York Life Ins. Co., 106 Pa.Super. 554, 162 A. 463, and Stewart v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 346 Pa. 314 at page 317, 30 A.2d 314.
We note in passing, plaintiff's reference to § 10.3424 -- there could be no waiver of tender of premium. See Morgan v. Hines, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 79, 149 F.2d 21. The policy was not reinstated. See Rowan v. United States, D.C., 115 F.Supp. 503.
In addition to the fact that estoppel cannot here be applied as a matter of law, Birmingham v. United States, 8 Cir., 1925, 4 F.2d 508; James v. United States, supra, 185 F.2d at page 118; United States v. Lewis, 5 Cir., 1953, 202 F.2d 102 at page 104; United States v. Norton, supra, 77 F.2d at page 732; Wilber Nat. Bank v. United States, supra, 294 U.S. at page 123, 55 S. Ct. 362, 79 L. Ed. 798; Colizza v. United States, D.C.W.D.Pa.1951, 101 F.Supp. 695 at page 697, the insured was given ample and adequate notice of the condition of his policy and of the necessity for reinstatement.