Bryant v. Metro. Life Ins. Co

• Citation: 147 N.C. 181,60 S.E. 983
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 25 March 1908
• Parties: BRYANT. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

60 S.E. 983

147 N.C. 181

BRYANT.

v.METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 25, 1908.

1. Insurance — Avoidance of Policy—Misrepresentations — Materiality — Statutory Provisions.

Under 2 Revisal 1905, § 4808, providing that all statements in any application for a policy of insurance, or in the policy itself, shall be held representations and not warranties, nor shall any representation, unless material or fraudulent, prevent a recovery on the policy, amisrepresentation to be material need not be as to a defect which contributes to the loss for which indemnity is claimed, but every fact untruly asserted or wrongfully suppressed must be regarded as material, if the knowledge or ignorance of it would naturally influence the underwriter in making the contract at all, in estimating the degree and character of the risk, or in fixing the rate of premiums; hence a statement in an application for life insurance that the applicant had not been under the care of a physician within two years would be a material representation.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, §§ 691-692.]

2. Same—Actions on Policies—Issues—Misrepresentations — Being Under Physician's Care—Necessity for Finding.

In an action on a life insurance policy, where there was an issue as to whether a misrepresentation by the applicant that he had not been under a physician's care within two years was true, failure to require a definite finding on the issue was error requiring reversal.

3. Same—Misrepresentation—"Under Care of a Physician."

Though a prescription given by a physician in response to a casual inquiry would not amount to being under the physician's care within the meaning of a statement in an application for life insurance that the applicant had not been "under the care of a physician" within two years, and though a prescription given after more careful examination as to an exceptional or isolated occurrence might not constitute the contemplated relationship, it is not necessary that the applicant should be bedridden to constitute being under a physician's care; but if the applicant, being apprehensive as to his condition, though "up and around, " consulted a physician, and intrusted his case to him for regular or continuous treatment within the two years, the representation would be false, and would relieve the insurance company from obligations under the policy issued thereon.

Appeal from Superior Court, Edgecombe County; Neal, Judge.

Action by Lillie Bryant against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. From a Judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed, and new trial ordered.

Civil action to recover on a life insurance policy issued by defendant company on the life of Matthew Bryant brought by his widow and the beneficiary of the policy, and tried before his honor, Neal, J., and a jury, at the October term, 1907, of the superior court of Edgecombe county. In the answer defendant admitted that proper proof of death of the insured had been furnished the company, and resisted recovery on the ground chiefly that the insured, unknown to the company, had the consumption at the time the policy was delivered, and that the insured at the time of the application for the policy made false representations to the company on material matters, chiefly that he had never had consumption, that he was then in sound health, and that he had not been under the care of any physician within two years. In apt time defendant's counsel tendered issues addressed to these defenses, and the question as to the proper issues was reserved by the court. It was shown that application for policy was made August 3, 1905; that medical examination was had August 4, 1905; that policy was received by the agent August 10th, and delivered to insured September 2d; and that insured died December 31, 1905.

At the close of the testimony the court, by consent of the parties, found certain facts considered as material and relevant to the inquiry as follows: "That Matthew Bryant, on the 3d day of August, 1905, made to the defendant an application for insurance, and in the said application represented to the said defendant that he did not have consumption; that the said representation was a material one. He also represented to the company that he had not been under the care of a physician within two years next preceding that time, and on that point the following is the undisputed evidence: Dr. Whitehead was asked, 'Please state what medical attention you gave Bryant from start to finish, ' and he replied: 'He called at my office about 5 or 6 times within 12 months time. I put him on creosote with strychnine and hypophosphites. Afterwards I gave him cod liver oil and creosote. This is all the medical treatment I gave him. I gave him advice as to his surroundings, diet, etc. This was about 12 months prior to his death.' The said inquiry was a material one. It was contracted and agreed between the insured and the defendant at the time of the...