Aetna Life Ins. Co., Etc. v. Prater's Adm'X

• Court: Supreme Court of Kentucky
• Writing for the Court: Stanley, Commissioner
• Citation: Aetna Life Ins. Co., Etc. v. Prater's Adm'X, 259 Ky. 665, 83 S.W.2d 17 (Ky. 1935)
• Decision Date: 28 May 1935
• Parties: Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Prater's Administratrix.

259 Ky. 665

Aetna Life Insurance Co. of Hartford, Conn., v. Prater's Administratrix.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Decided May 28, 1935.

1. Witnesses. — In action for disability benefits under group policy commenced after death of insured who had been discharged prior to his death, widow's testimony as to insured's physical condition during period antedating his discharge held inadmissible under statute excluding testimony of wife and testimony of beneficial party concerning transactions with a decedent (Civil Code of Practice, sec. 606).

2. Evidence. — In action commenced after death of insured for disability benefits under group policy, opinions of widow and other laymen as to insured's disability to labor and state of his health held inadmissible as not being opinions of professional or expert witnesses.

Appeal from Johnson Circuit Court.

ALLEN & TACKETT for appellant.

J.L. HARRINGTON for appellee.

OPINION OF THE COURT BY STANLEY, COMMISSIONER.

Reversing.

Wilbur Prater was insured by a group policy issued by the appellant to the employees of the North-west Coal Company. On July 31, 1931, he, among many others, was laid off from work indefinitely in a general reduction of forces. His insurance was thereupon automatically canceled unless it should have developed that the layoff was temporary. Prater died August 11, 1932, of ulcer of the stomach. Several months later the insurance company was notified of his death and an informal request was made for payment of the indemnity for total and permanent disability under the terms of the canceled policy or certificate. On December 20, 1933, suit was filed by "Mahala Prater, Widow" to recover this indemnity as beneficiary. Later she qualified as administratrix and came in by amended petition as such fiduciary.

The widow was permitted to testify on interrogation by her counsel and also by the court concerning her deceased husband's physical condition during the period antedating his discharge, and as to other things, in clear violation of section 606 of the Civil Code of Practice, excluding testimony of a wife and also testimony of a beneficial party concerning transactions with a decedent. Prudential Insurance Co. v. Hodge's Adm'r, 232 Ky. 44, 22 S.W. (2d) 435; Lawson's Adm'r v. Brandenburg, 240 Ky. 68, 41 S.W. (2d) 201; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Broughton, 253 Ky. 83, 68 S.W. (2d) 782; Farmers' Exchange Bank v. Moffett, 256 Ky. 160, 75 S.W. (2d) 1063.

The widow as well as other laymen expressed...