Cont'l Life Ins. Co. v. Young

• Decision Date: 25 January 1888
• Parties: Continental Life Ins. Co. v. Young.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

113 Ind. 159

15 N.E. 220

Continental Life Ins. Co.

v.Young.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

January 25, 1888.

Appeal from superior court, Marion county.

Plaintiff (appellee) sued the defendant (appellant) upon a policy of life insurance issued by the appellant upon the life of her husband. The appellant defended below upon the plea of breach of warranties contained in the application and policy, in this, that the insured had been afflicted with Bright's disease of the kidneys, and with disease of the urinary and generative organs, and was so afflicted at the time the application for insurance was made. There was a trial by jury, and finding in favor of the appellee. Upon an appeal to general term, the judgment at special term was affirmed, and an appeal was thereupon taken to this court.

Finch & Finch, for appellant.

The court should have taken notice that Bright's disease is a “disease.” It has been held, as a matter of law, that tubercular affections of the lungs, or tubercles upon the lungs, or tubercles on the brain, or consumption constitute a “local disease.” Scoles v. Insurance Co., 42 Cal. 523. Bright's disease is certainly as well known as any of these. There being no evidence introduced by plaintiff below, to show that Bright's disease did not amount to a disease, and defendant's evidence disclosing that it was a disease, and an incurable one, it became the duty of the court to instruct the jury for defendant (appellant) upon this point. Where the evidence for a party is undisputed, upon any point of issue in the case, it is error in the court to allow the jury to decide upon that point. It becomes the duty of the court to instruct in favor of such party upon such point. Beckner v. Turn-Pike Co., 65 Ind. 468; Work Pr. § 789, 514; Geach v. Ingall, 14 Mees. & W. 95.

In a conversation, which occurred about three weeks prior to the making of the application, the insured had told the witness that he did not feel as though he could live long, that he did not feel right inside, and was going to get his life insured. The part underscored the court refused to admit, and therein, we think, it erred. Greenl. Ev. (13th Ed.) 238, § 201. The admissions of the insured made prior to, and not too remote from, the time of application, are admissible evidence. Swift v. Insurance Co., 63 N. Y. 186.After having submitted the fourth interrogatory to the jury, it was error for the court to withdraw it over objection. Railroad Co. v. Dickerson, 59 Ind. 317;Brooker v. Weber, 41 Ind. 426.

The evidence in support of the finding (if the court can find any) is clearly and conclusively contradicted. Such being the case, this court will order a new trial. Martin v. State, 28 Ind. 310. The general rule is that, if there was evidence from which the jury might reasonably have found a fact, this court will not disturb the verdict because there was other evidence in conflict with that on which the finding was based. But where the evidence in support of the finding is clearly and conclusively contradicted, this court will not hesitate to reverse the case. Railway Co. v. Goddard, 25 Ind. 185. Also, see, Railroad Co. v. Bowen, 49 Ind. 154;Young v. Urich, 15 Ind. 326;Marsteller v. Crapp, 62 Ind. 359;Bradford v. Bradford, 59 Ind. 434;Stough v. Smith, 50 Ind. 250;Roe v. Cronkhite, 55 Ind. 183;Norwood v. Harness, 98 Ind. 134;State v. Wilson, 90 Ind. 114;Stringer v. Insurance Co., 82 Ind. 100.

Carter & Binford, for appellee.

Mitchell, C. J.

Nettie Young sued the Continental Life Insurance Company to recover the amount alleged to be due her on a policy of life insurance, issued on the thirtieth day of June, 1883, on the life of Christian Young, the plaintiff's husband. The complaint alleges that the death of Christian Young occurred on the fourth day of August, 1883, and that all of the conditions of the policy had been duly kept and performed on the part of the plaintiff and the assured. The company defended upon the ground that there had been a breach of the warranties contained in the application and policy, in that, by his answers to certain questions propounded in the application, the assured had represented, among other things, that he then had no disease of the kidneys, or of the urinary or generative organs, when the truth was that, before and at the time of making the application, he was afflicted with a disease known as “Bright's disease,” which rendered insurance on his life more than ordinarily hazardous. There was a trial and verdict for the plaintiff.

The only controverted question was whether or not the insured was afflicted with Bright's disease at the time he made and signed his application for insurance. Upon this point the evidence was conflicting. The plaintiff below introduced evidence tending to show that the assured was at the time in robust health, and free from disease or ailment, while the insurance company produced a medical witness who testified that, a short time prior to the making of the application, he subjected the urine of the assured to a chemical and microscopical examination, and in that manner had found out that he was afflicted with Bright's disease, in a stage so far advanced as to be incurable. There was other evidence supporting the theory of the defense. The plaintiff, on the other hand, produced medical witnesses, in rebuttal, who testified that all the symptoms relied on to indicate the presence of Bright's disease, as testified to by the doctor who made the examination, might be produced by and result from other and merely temporary causes, such as a cold affecting the organs involved, and the like. Apparently reliable testimony was also given to the effect that it was practically impossible to determine satisfactorily, from one examination, whether or not a patient had Bright's disease, or some other less aggravated malady of a similar but temporary character. Taking all the evidence together, and it fairly becomes a question for the determination of the jury whether or not the defense was...