Alexander v. Metro. Life Ins. Co
| Decision Date | 28 April 1909 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | ALEXANDER. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. |
Insurance (§ 291*)—Life Policy—Representations — Materiality — Untruth — "Material Representation."
A statement in an application for life insurance that applicant had never had any disease of the kidneys is a material representation within Revisal 1905, § 4808, the untruth of which is a defense to the policy, irrespective of whether the statement was fraudulently made.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 681, 687; Dec. Dig. § 291.*
For other rlnfinitions, see Words and Phrases, vol. 5, p. 4407.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Cabarrus County; Justice, Judge.
Action by Caroline Alexander against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
This action was based on a life insurance policy, issued by the defendant company on the life of Pearl Alexander in favor of Caroline Alexander, the appellee, as beneficiary. The defense to the action was based on certain provisions of the policy, declaring it void if the insured, before its date, had been attended by a physician for any serious disease or complaint, or had any disease of the kidneys.
The following findings were made by the jury: (1) Did Pearl Alexander, the insured, in her application for Insurance, falsely represent that she had not been attended by a physician for any complaint within two years prior to making such application? Answer: No. (2) Was Pearl Alexander attended by a physician for any serious disease or complaint within two years before the policy was issued for the plaintiff? Answer: Yes. (3) Did Pearl Alexander falsely represent that she had not had kidney disease? Answer: No. (4) Had Pearl Alexander, prior to making application for the policy sued on, had kidney trouble? Answer: Yes.
The defendant moved for judgment upon the issues and assigns the refusal to grant same as error. The court denied the motion and gave judgment for plaintiff. Defendant excepted and appealed.
Adams, Armfield, Jerome & Maness, for appellant.
W. G. Means, for appellee.
The insured, Pearl Alexander, was a child about 15 years of age, whose life was insured on March 18, 1907, by defendant for the benefit of plaintiff, her mother by adoption and great-aunt by blood. Insured died In April, 1908, according to the evidence, of an abscess in the kidney. There is a statement in the application, which is the basis of the policy, that insured had never had any disease of the kidneys. The evidence fully sustains the finding of the jury that prior to the application for insurance the girl had kidney disease and was being treated for it by a physician. The insurance contract contains the following clause: "This policy is void If the insured before its date (meaning date of policy) had been rejected for insurance by any other company, or has been attended by a physician for any serious disease or complaint, or has had before said date any pulmonary disease or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Russell v. New York Life Ins. Co.
... ... 116; Campbell v. New England Mut. Life Ins ... Co., 98 Mass. 381; Sparer v. Travelers' Ins ... Co., 185 A.D. 861, 173 N.Y.S. 673; Alexander v ... Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 150 N.C. 536, 64 S.E. 432; ... United Brethern Mut. Aid Society v. O'Hara, 120 ... Pa. 256, 13 A. 932; Mutual ... ...
-
Cottingham v. Maryland Motor Car Ins. Co.
... ... and if the violation is discontinued during the life of the ... policy, and does not exist at the time of the loss, the ... policy revives, and the ... 589, 53 S.E. 354; Bryant ... v. Insurance Co., 147 N.C. 181, 60 S.E. 983; ... Alexander v. Insurance Co., 150 N.C. 536, 64 S.E ... 432; Gardner v. Insurance Co., 163 N.C. 367, 79 S.E ... ...
- Mackendree Et Al v. Southern States Life Ins. Co. Of Ala.
-
Fountain & Herrington v. Mutual Life Ins. Co.
...N. C. 543, 117 S. E. 785; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Leaksville Woolen Mills, 172 N. C. 534, 90 S. E. 574, 576; Alexander v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 150 N. C. 536, 64 S. E. 432. The rule is thus stated by Mr. Justice Brown, speaking for the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the Leaksville......