Blumenthal v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 July 1903
• Citation: 134 Mich. 216,96 N.W. 17
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BLUMENTHAL v. BERKSHIRE LIFE INS. CO.

96 N.W. 17

134 Mich. 216

BLUMENTHAL v. BERKSHIRE LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of Michigan

July 14, 1903

Error to Circuit Court, Ogemaw County; Nelson Sharpe, Judge.

Action by Philip Blumenthal against the Berkshire Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Affirmed.

F. L. Snodgrass (T. A. E. & J. C. Weadock, of counsel), for appellant.

Ross &amp Harris (Simonson, Gillett & Clark, of counsel), for appellee.

MONTGOMERY J.

This is an action on an insurance policy issued on the life of Nicholas I. Blumenthal. The defense interposed was false representations and warranties made by the insured in his application for the policy. The particular questions claimed to have been falsely answered, together with the answers given in the application, were the following: 'No. 15. Have you ever had chronic or persistent cough or hoarseness? A. No. No. 16. State particulars of any illness constitutional disease, or injury you have had, giving date duration, and remaining effects, if A. No disease or illness of any kind. No. 17. When did you last consult a physician? A. About a year ago. Q. For what? A. Cold and cough. No. 21. Give names and addresses of physicians who have attended you? A. C. L. Nauman, M. D., West Branch, Michigan.'

It is argued at length by counsel for the defendant that the evidence conclusively shows the assured was suffering from a chronic and persistent cough for a considerable period before the application; that he had, within the period of a year consulted physicians other than Dr. Nauman; and that his answers to each of these questions were shown to be untrue. It would not be of profit to set out at length the testimony bearing upon the question as to whether the ailments which the assured is shown to have had were such ailments or diseases as to seriously affect the general soundness and healthiness of the system, or whether, on the other hand, it was a mere temporary indisposition, not tending to undermine the constitution of the insured. An examination of the record discloses that this question of fact was sharply controverted at the trial, and that there is abundant evidence that, on the occasions when the assured had consulted physicians, the trouble under which he was laboring was temporary, and yielded to treatment. The law is settled that in a representation, contained in an application for insurance, that the assured is in good health, or that he has not been subject to illness, or that he has not been attended by a physician or consulted one professionally, the answer is to be construed as meaning, in the one case, that he has not suffered an illness of a serious nature, tending to undermine the constitution, and that a state of health is freedom from disease or ailment that affects the general soundness or healthiness of the system seriously. And as to representations as to treatment by physicians, the omission to state a treatment by a physician for some temporary indisposition does not avoid the policy. See Brown v. Ins. Co., 65 Mich. 306, 32 N.W. 610; Pudritzky v. Supreme Lodge, 76 Mich. 428, 43 N.W. 373; Hann v. Ins. Co., 97 Mich. 513, 56 N.W. 834, 37 Am. St. Rep. 365; Plumb v. Ins. Co., 108 Mich. 94, 65...