IMPOSSIBILITY   229

in this case.) Without prejudice to any other cause of disability, * * * incurable insanity will be considered as total and permanent disability within the meaning of this provision."

Upon the back of the policy we find the following printed statement: "Should the insured become totally and permanently disabled, the policy becomes paid-up for its face amount at the option of the insured; that is, no more premiums are payable."

The trial court fairly submitted all defenses to the jury, other than the two principal ones mentioned, and, since the evidence was conflicting, the verdict settled these issues in favor of plaintiff.

In its brief the insurance company concedes: "That the insured became totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of the policy March 1, 1916, and remained so thereafter until his death December 23, 1917." The plaintiff bases her right to recover on the proposition that, since the insured became totally and permanently disabled upon March 1, 1916, and so remained until his death, he was incapable of giving the proofs or exercising an option, and that therefore she had the right, when she discovered the policy, to furnish the proofs required and exercise the option. The contention of the company is that the exercise of the optional provisions in such a case is personal to the insured, so that when his mental disability, or incurable insanity, rendered him incapable of making proof, or selecting an option, he, or his beneficiary, lost all benefit of the optional provisions; that provisions giving additional rights to the insured upon the happening of certain events, or the performance of certain acts by the insured, in case of disability, are ancillary to the main purposes of the policy, which is life insurance, and are strictly construed, and that happening of the events, or performance of the acts, are conditions precedent to the obtaining of any rights thereunder: that, even though the insured is incurably insane, proofs of such condition must be furnished by the insured himself, and not by any one for him, and he must select one of the options or lose all rights under the policy, and that those conditions must be met while the policy is in force and has not lapsed on account of failure to pay the next premium due.

The general rule. where there is no positive language in the contract which requires performance by the insured personally, and at all events, is stated as follows in Comstock v. Fraternal Accident Ass'n, 116 Wis. 3S2: "It is considered that a requirement in a contract of insurance that the insured shall, after suffering loss, perform some act as a condition precedent to the right to recover therefor, does not include cases where performance is pre-vented without fault of the assured, because of his being incapacitated to act in the matter; that in such cases the assured will not forfeit his insurance if he performs the stipulated act within a reasonable time after a mental capacity to do so shall have been restored to him."