(concurring).
I concur in the principal opinion as written but I desire to add a further statement.
As we understand the facts of this case, the difficulty out of which Higgins’ liability arose occurred on December 15, 1953, at a time when Higgins’ contract with Interna*148tional was in full force and effect and also International’s contract with General was in full force and effect; and it appears that General now admits the premium paid by Higgins was so divided that International kept the premium for the first $5,000 of liability and General received the excess premium for liability in excess of $5,000 or $10,000 depending on the circumstances, etc. Further, General’s contract with International expressly provided that: “The liability of the Reinsurer shall follow that of the Company in every case and shall be subject in all respects to all the general and special stipulations, clauses, waivers and modification of the Company’s policy, binder, or other undertaking and any endorsements thereon * * We further recognize that General’s reinsurance contract also provided that: “Payments under this Agreement shall be made directly to the Company or to its liquidator, receiver or statutory successor on the basis of the liability of the Company under the contracts reinsured, without diminution because of the insolvency of the Company.”
The question therefore is whether the court should give effect to this latter portion of the Higgins-General contract, particularly in view of the well-established public policy of this state, where it appears that at the time Higgins’ liability arose he had the protection of his own policy supplemented by the reinsurance policy, both of which were intended for the purpose of discharging any judgment rendered against him in accordance with the provisions of the two policies.
The public policy of this state in respect to the application of insurance funds as to the payment of judgments against the insured in cases such as the one under consideration here is fully stated in Section 379.195 and Section 379.200 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S. and the provisions of these sections were in full force and effect when the insurance contracts in question became effective. The provisions of these statutes made void and ineffective every provision of every policy of insurance in conflict therewith. Dyche v. Bostian, Mo.Sup., 233 S.W.2d 721, 724(4-6); Homan v. Employers Reinsurance Corporation, 345 Mo. 650, 136 S.W.2d 289, 295(2, 3), 127 A.L.R. 163.
While these sections do not necessarily apply to reinsurance contracts, as such, nevertheless when International’s policy was issued to Higgins, the applicable provisions of Section 379.195 and Section 379.200 RSMo 1949, V.A.M.S., became and were a part of that contract of insurance as fully as if set out in the policy itself, and when International’s policy, so modified by said statutes, was incorporated by agreement in General’s contract with International, the provisions of International’s policy, as modified by the said statutes, were incorporated in General’s contract of reinsurance so that the liability of the reinsurer (General) followed the liability of International and was “subject in all respects to all the general and special stipulations, clauses, waivers and modification of the Company’s policy, binder, or other undertaking and any endorsements thereon * * * ” and General was bound thereby.
In the case of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Siebert (8th Cir.), 72 F.2d 6, the insurance company sought to avoid liability for an insane suicide on the ground that the policy provided for the suspension of the policy if the insured became insane. In ruling the issue presented the court applied the public policy of this state, as evidenced by the statutes thereinbefore referred to, and said: “The policy of insurance is a Missouri contract, made in Missouri, with a Missouri citizen, and is governed by the laws of Missouri, which are a part of the contract itself. The suicide statute above referred to has been held by the Supreme Court of the United States and by the Supreme Court of Missouri to be valid and binding upon insurance companies doing business in Missouri, and that inasmuch as it declares the public policy of that state any provision of a policy in conflict with it or which seeks to avoid its effect in whole or in part is void. In Whitfield v. Aetna *149Life Insurance Co., 205 U.S. 489, loc. cit. 496, 27 S.Ct. 578, 580, 51 L.Ed. 895, the court said: ‘We cannot agree with the learned courts below in their interpretation of the statute. The contract between the parties, evidenced by the policy, is, we think, an evasion of the statute, and tends to defeat the objects for which it was enacted. In clear, emphatic words the statute declares that in all suits on policies of insurance on life it shall be no defense that the insured committed suicide, unless it be shown that he contemplated suicide when applying for the policy. Whatever tends to diminish the plaintiff’s cause of action or to defeat recovery in whole or in part amounts in law to a defense. * * * If, notwithstanding the statute, an insurance company may, by contract, bind itself, in case of the suicide of the insured, to pay only one tenth of the principal sum, may it not lawfully contract for exemption as to the whole or only a nominal part thereof, and, if sued, defeat any action in which a recovery is sought for the entire amount insured? In this way the statute could be annulled or made useless for any practical purpose. * * * “The statute is mandatory and obligatory alike on the insurance company and the assured. Its very object was to prohibit and annul such •stipulations in policies, and it cannot be waived or abrogated by any form of contract or by any device whatever.” ’ The suspension clause in this policy would be 'binding if it were not prohibited by the Missouri law. But being prohibited no mere use of words which in effect avoid the law can render this clause binding. It is ■manifest that one of the purposes of the language in this policy is to defeat a recovery where an insane person commits suicide. This cannot be done.”
We think the public policy of this state is such that this court, under the facts and circumstances appearing in this record, must disregard (as in conflict with the statutes) that portion of the Higgins-General ■contract providing that “Payments under •.this Agreement shall be made directly to * * * its liquidator, receiver or statutory successor on the basis of the liability of the Company under the contracts reinsured * * * ”; and that the judgment in question should be paid to the garnishor, plaintiff-appellant.