Fidelity Mut. Life Ass'n v. Ficklin

• Decision Date: 13 October 1891
• Citation: Fidelity Mut. Life Ass'n v. Ficklin, 74 Md. 172, 23 A. 197 (Md. 1891)
• Parties: FIDELITY MUT. LIFE ASS'N v. FICKLIN ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

23 A. 197

74 Md. 172

FIDELITY MUT. LIFE ASS'N v. FICKLIN ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

October 13, 1891

On rehearing.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, ROBINSON, IRVING, BRYAN MCSHERRY, and BRISCOE, JJ.

BRYAN J.

The learned counsel for the appellant have moved for a reargument in this case. They base their motion on the supposition that the court overlooked or disregarded certain clauses in the application for insurance. These clauses were quoted word for word in the statement prepared by the court, which preceded the opinion, and which set forth the facts on which it was founded. The Pennsylvania statute enacted that "whenever the application for a policy of life insurance contains a clause of warranty of the truth of the answers therein contained, no misrepresentation or untrue statement in such application made in good faith by the applicant shall effect a forfeiture, * * * unless such misrepresentation or untrue statement relate to some matter material to the risk." This is a most clear declaration that under the circumstances mentioned the policy shall not be forfeited; in other words, that it shall be a valid and binding contract. It is part of the nature and essence of the warranty that it should have the effect stated. It is a condition on which it is permitted to have existence and operation; as much so as if it had been written in express words on the face of the policy. The contract of insurance must be made in subordination to the statute, and must have the legal effect which the statute attributes to it, and none other. Whatever form of words may be used, the legal effect of the warranty must be such as the statute impresses upon it. It was the intention of the legislature to prevent insurance companies from forfeiting policies by means of warranties, as they had been previously construed, and to enforce the new construction set forth in the statute. These corporations manifestly, have not the legal capacity to make a contract which should give a construction to a warranty in opposition to that which the law has established; and, of course, they cannot, by virtue of any agreement, acquire the competency to do what the law forbids.

It is stated in the policy that the application for insurance is made a part of the contract, and that the assured agrees that every statement and answer contained therein is material, and warrants them "to be full, complete, and true." And in...