Couch v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 16 November 1925
• Docket Number: 16283.
• Citation: 130 S.E. 596,34 Ga.App. 543
• Parties: COUCH v. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

130 S.E. 596

34 Ga.App. 543

COUCH v. NATIONAL LIFE & ACCIDENT INS. CO.

No. 16283.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

November 16, 1925

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

In view of Civ. Code 1910, § 2471, where copy of application is not attached to policy of life insurance, it is not part of contract, and statements therein are not warranties, falsities of which avoid risk as matter of contract.

Where copy of application was not attached to policy of life insurance, application was admissible, not as part of contract, nor to show policy was void under contract, but to show that it was fraudulently procured.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Action by Bertha Couch against the National Life & Accident Insurance Company. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Walden & Hixson, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Hendrix & Buchanan, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

JENKINS, P.J.

1. Where a copy of the application is not attached to a policy of life insurance, it does not form a part of the contract of insurance, and consequently the statements therein contained are not to be treated as warranties, and their falsity would not avoid the risk as a matter of contract. Civil Code 1910, § 2471.

2. Although the unattached application could not be admitted for the purpose of showing a breach of the contract, since it forms no part of the contract, still, where the defense is that the policy was fraudulently procured by reason of false and fraudulent representations material to the risk, the application is admissible not as a part of the contract, and not for the purpose of showing that the policy was void under the contract, but to show that it was fraudulently procured. Johnson v. American National L. Ins. Co., 134 Ga. 800, 68 S.E. 731; Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Logan, 9 Ga.App. 503, 71 S.E. 742; Bankers' Health & L. Ins. Co. v. Murray, 22 Ga.App. 495, 96 S.E. 347; Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. Pate, 23 Ga.App. 232, 97 S.E. 874; Metropolitan L. Ins. Co. v. Shaw, 30 Ga.App. 97, 98, 117 S.E. 106. The only alleged error complained of being that the judge erred in thus admitting the application in evidence, the judge of the superior court did not err in overruling the certiorari.

Judgment affirmed.

STEPHENS and BELL, JJ., concur.