Chavis v. Home Sec. Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 29 January 1960
• Docket Number: No. 742,742
• Citation: Chavis v. Home Sec. Life Ins. Co., 112 S.E.2d 574, 251 N.C. 849 (N.C. 1960)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Myrtle CHAVIS v. HOME SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 574

112 S.E.2d 574

251 N.C. 849

Myrtle CHAVIS v.HOME SECURITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 742

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 29, 1960

Varser, McIntyre, Henry & Hedgpeth, Lumberton, for defendant, appellant.

L. J. Britt & Son, Lumberton, for plaintiff, appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The defendant admitted the execution and delivery of the policy, the payment of the premium, and the death of the insured within the period of coverage.These admissions placed upon the defendant the burden of showing a legal excuse for refusing payment according to the terms of the policy.The plaintiff introduced the policy in evidence.The admissions and the policy made out a case for the jury.Thomas-Yelverton Co. v. State Capital Life Ins. Co., 238 N.C. 278, 77 S.E.2d 692.Defendant's assignment of error based on the court's refusal to nonsuit cannot be sustained.

The insurer offered as its defense the application for the policy in which appeared above the insured's name the statement she had not suffered from cancer, etc.The agent of the insurer testified the insured answered the questions as recorded in the application and signed it.The defendant offered medical testimony the insured died of cancer within four months of the date of the policy; that she had suffered from the disease for as much as three years prior to the application; that she had been operated on for this malignancy prior to the application.The defendant contended the concealment of this important information induced the defendant to issue the policy.

The plaintiff offered evidence the insured did not sign the application; and that only the questions as to her name, age, residence, the name of the beneficiary, and 'how is her health,' were asked by the agent; and that no other information was asked for or given.The beneficiary stated, 'Her health is good as far as I know'; and that she knew nothing of any disease, treatment or operation her mother had while in Jacksonville or Onslow County.The agent received the premium and submitted to its principal the application upon which the policy was based.

Whether responsibility for the false answers was attributable to the insured or to the agent of the company was in serious dispute.There was neither allegation nor proof of any collusion.The jury resolved the disputed issues of fact against the defendant. '* * * the credibility of the evidence to support the defendant's defense was a matter for the jury. 'Tolbert v. Mutual...