Welch v. Union Central Life Ins. Co.
| Citation | 78 N.W. 853,108 Iowa 224 |
| Parties | VERONA H. WELCH v. THE UNION CENTRAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1899 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from Cedar Rapids Superior Court.--HON. T. M. GIBERSON Judge.
PLAINTIFF the beneficiary named in a policy of life insurance issued by the defendant on the twenty-first day of March, 1896, on the life of Otis S. Hogg, brings this action at law to recover three thousand dollars, with interest, on said policy alleging the death of said assured on the first day of June 1896, that proofs thereof were duly made, and that the defendant refuses payment; wherefore judgment is asked. The defendant answered, admitting that it issued the policy; that the assured died; that proof of his death was made; that it refuses payment; and alleges, as defense, that the issuing of said policy was procured by fraud, which allegations will hereafter more fully appear. The defendant prays to be dismissed, with costs, and for "a decree rescinding the said application and policy, and that the defendant have general and equitable relief." In an amendment, the defendant alleges that the only consideration received from the deceased for said policy was thirty-three dollars and twenty-six cents in cash, and two promissory notes for thirty-three dollars and twenty-six cents each; that no administration had been taken out on the estate of the deceased; that there is no legal representative of his estate to whom defendant can surrender said money and notes; wherefore defendant brings the same into court, to be delivered to the person legally entitled thereto. The defendant moved to transfer the case to equity, which motion was overruled. Plaintiff replied, saying that the defendant is estopped from contesting the policy upon the facts alleged in its answer, and because, through its medical examiner, it knew the physical health and habits of the assured. The case was called for trial to a jury, and at the close of all the testimony the court sustained plaintiff's motion for a verdict for the amount claimed, and rendered judgment therefor. The defendant appeals.
Reversed.
Ramsey, Maxwell & Ramsey and Smith, Kirk & Smith for appellant.
Jamison & Smyth and C. W. Kepler for appellee.
I.
Appellant moves to strike appellee's additional abstract on the grounds that the denial of appellant's abstract is not sufficiently specific, and that the matter set out in the additional abstract is not necessary to this appeal. We do not think there is any substantial merit in this motion, and it is therefore overruled.
II. Appellant first complains of the overruling of its motion to transfer the cause to equity. The defense of fraud in procuring the contract is conceded to be available in an action at law, but it is insisted that the prayer for cancellation of the policy and application calls for the exercise of equity powers. The motion was to transfer the entire case; but, as the issue of fraud was properly triable at law, there was no error in overruling the motion.
III. The original application, signed by the assured, the medical examiner's certificate of health, and the policy have been certified for our inspection; and, generally speaking, we may say that they are in the form in common use. Of the matters appearing therein it is only necessary that we mention the following: The application is in two parts; the first giving in detail the name and residence of the applicant, name of the beneficiary, amount of insurance desired, etc., and contains the following: "It is hereby agreed and warranted that, should the company issue a policy upon this application, its interests shall not be affected by verbal statements made to its agents or others, or by the knowledge of such agent, but that it shall be affected only by the statements herein made (including those made to the medical examiner), which are hereby warranted to be true, full, and correct as facts, and they shall constitute the basis of any policy which may be issued hereon." In part 2 the deceased stated, in response to printed questions, that he was in sound health, that he never had consumption, spitting blood, habitual prolonged cough, and that he never employed a physician; and, in conclusion, declared as follows: "I hereby further declare that I have read and understand all the above question put to me by the medical examiner, and the answers thereto, and that the same are true, and that I am the same person described as above; and I hereby warrant that there is not, and there has not been, any concealment of facts regarding my past and present state of health and habits of life, or my personal history." It is provided in the policy that the application is made a part of the contract, and that the policy "is issued and accepted subject to the benefits, provisions, and conditions contained on the second page thereof, which are made a part of this contract." Among the conditions enumerated on the second page is the following: "Except as hereinbefore provided, this policy shall be incontestable for any cause except mistatement of age." It is alleged in the answer that the statements made by the deceased, in his application, that he was in sound health, that he had never had consumption, spitting blood, habitual or prolonged cough, and had never employed a physician, were false and fraudulent, were known to the applicant to be false and fraudulent, and were so made to mislead, deceive, and defraud the defendant; that, at the time of said application and the issuance of said policy, said applicant was not in sound health; that he was, and had been for a long time, suffering from consumption, was subject to spells of spitting blood, had an habitual and prolonged cough, had employed a physician, and was continually receiving medical treatment.
IV. Appellant assigns as error the sustaining of appellee's motion for a verdict, the grounds of which may be summed up as follows: (1) The defendant has failed to establish any defense. (2) Because the policy in suit is incontestable, for the reasons alleged in the answer. (3) Because it appears from the certificate of health of the examination of deceased, that he was at the time of said examination in...
To continue reading
Request your trial