Barrow v. Philadelphia Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 06 October 1915 |
| Docket Number | 171. |
| Parties | BARROW v. PHILADELPHIA LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Carter, Judge.
Action by J. B. Barrow against the Philadelphia Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. No error.
In an action on a life policy, certificate of insurer's medical examiner attached to application held admissible as part of application and tending to show insured was in good health at issuance of policy.
Rouse & Land, of Kinston, for appellant.
Moore & Dunn, of New Bern, for appellee.
This action is for recovery of the amount of an insurance policy upon the life of W. M. Bagley which had been duly assigned by him to the plaintiff. The defendant alleged that the insured in his application had made misrepresentations as to the name of the last physician who had been consulted by him prior to the application, and also that he had untruly represented therein that he was in good health at the time; that he had never had any palpitation or any disease of the heart nor chronic dyspepsia or disease of the stomach. These allegations were denied and raised issues of fact which were all found by the jury in favor of the plaintiff.
The first four assignments of error were abandoned. The fifth assignment was that the court permitted the admission of the medical certificate of Dr. Loftin which was attached to the application, it being shown that he was the regular medical examiner of said company. This certificate was competent because it was part of the application and tended to corroborate the contention of the plaintiff that the deceased was in good health at the time of the issuance of the policy and was competent in contradiction of the allegations of the witnesses of defendant concerning the conditions under which the policy was issued.
The sixth assignment of error was that a physician was asked the hypothetical question whether, if this statement annexed to the application by the medical examiner for the defendant was true, the applicant could have had heart trouble. We are aware of no ground upon which this testimony could have been excluded. It was expert evidence which would materially aid the jury in coming to a conclusion as to the disputed fact whether the applicant had misrepresented his condition in that respect.
Assignments of error 7, 8, 9, and 10 are to the charge of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial