Anastasio v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
Decision Date | 23 July 1942 |
Docket Number | 102-1941 |
Citation | 27 A.2d 510,149 Pa.Super. 414 |
Parties | Anastasio, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company |
Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued November 13, 1941.
Appeal from judgment of M. C. Phila. Co., Jan. T., 1939, No. 91, in case of Rose Anastasio v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Assumpsit on life insurance policy. Before Bonniwell, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
Verdict directed for plaintiff for amount of premiums paid. Motion by plaintiff for new trial dismissed. Plaintiff appealed.
Errors assigned, among others, were various rulings on evidence.
Judgment affirmed.
William S. Stein, with him Martin G. Stein, for appellant.
Owen B Rhoads, with him John Bishop and Dechert, Smith & Clark, for appellee.
Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Rhodes, Hirt and Kenworthey, JJ.
Plaintiff Rose Anastasio, sued as beneficiary in a policy of life insurance issued November 1, 1937, wherein the defendant company insured the life of her husband, Michael Anastasio, in the amount of $ 1295. The insured, aged forty-five at the date the policy issued, died May 3, 1938, from a disease of the gall bladder and carcinoma of the stomach. The policy was issued after an examination of the insured by the company's medical examiner and upon the written application of the insured signed by him on September 28, 1937, and attached to the policy.
At the trial in the Municipal Court of Philadelphia County, before Bonniwell, J. and a jury, plaintiff, having proved issuance of the policy, payment of premiums and submission of proofs of death, rested. The company defended on the ground that insured made false and fraudulent answers to questions in his application inquiring whether he had been an inmate, for examination, consultation or treatment, in any hospital, or had been treated by a physician, within the preceding five years. At the conclusion of the testimony the court below directed a verdict for plaintiff but only for the amount of the premiums paid. Her motion for a new trial was dismissed and she now appeals from the judgment entered on the verdict.
The fundamental question involved upon this appeal may be thus stated: Does it appear by (a) uncontradicted documentary evidence, or (b) admissions in the pleadings, that the insured's answers to certain questions, in his application, material to the risk, were false and fraudulent as a matter of law, or should the good faith of his answers have been submitted to the jury.
The principles of law governing the disposition of this appeal are well settled in this jurisdiction. In the leading case of Evans v. Penn Mutual Life Ins. Co., 322 Pa. 547, 186 A. 133, Mr. Justice Drew, after reviewing many previous decisions, stated (p. 555): These principles have been reaffirmed, applied and followed in many later decisions, both in our Supreme Court and in this court. [1]
The policy provided, inter alia: "This policy is issued in consideration of the application therefor, a copy of which application is attached hereto and made a part hereof." Questions nine and twenty-three, contained in part "B" of the application, are those to which the defendant company alleges the insured gave false and fraudulent answers. These questions and the answers of the applicant thereto read: Answer: "No."; Answer, "No."
The insured certified over his signature at the bottom of the application that he had read the answers to these questions; that they had been correctly written as given by him; that they are "full, true and complete"; and that there are no exceptions.
Paragraph fifteen of defendant's affidavit of defense alleged under new matter: [2]
Plaintiff's reply to the fifteenth paragraph of new matter reads:
In addition to these indicated admissions in plaintiff's pleadings, the insurer placed in evidence certain uncontradicted documentary evidence consisting of hospital records showing the insured's visits to Jefferson Hospital within five years prior to the date of his application.
Defendant called Mrs....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Van Riper v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of US, Civ. A. No. 81-4937.
...as a matter of law. See e.g., Indovina v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 334 Pa. 167, 5 A.2d 556 (1939); Anastasio v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 149 Pa.Super.Ct. 414, 27 A.2d 510 (1942); Underwood v. Prudential Ins. Co., 241 Pa.Super.Ct. 27, 359 A.2d 422 B. Knowledge of the Falsity of the Dec......
-
Glaser v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
... ... [157 ... Pa.Super. 472] ROSS, J ... The ... beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by the ... defendant insurance company appeals from the granting of a ... Insurance Company, 154 Pa.Super. 387, 35 A.2d 754; ... Kasmer v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 140 ... Pa.Super. 46, 12 A.2d 805. Inquiries as to the attendance by ... Metropolitan Life Insurance ... Company, 133 Pa.Super. 139, 2 A.2d 501; Anastasio v ... Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 149 Pa.Super. 414, ... 27 A.2d 510 ... The ... ...