Holden v. Prudential Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 05 March 1906 |
| Citation | 191 Mass. 153,77 N.E. 309 |
| Parties | HOLDEN v. PRUDENTIAL LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Daniel V. McIsaac, for plaintiff.
Charles T. Cottrell, for defendant.
The plaintiff brought suit upon a policy of life insurance issued to her intestate, and the defendant answered that the policy was procured by fraud practiced upon the company in regard to the risk. It is elementary law that this, if proved, would be a good defense. Proof might be made by showing material false and fraudulent representations whether oral or in writing, and reliance upon them as an inducement to the issuing of the policy. The defendant offered in evidence a written application of the plaintiff's intestate for insurance, containing representations alleged to be fraudulent. There is no doubt of its competency on this issue, unless the statute prevents the use of it. The statute relied on by the plaintiff is as follows: 'Every policy which contains a reference to the application of the insured either as a part of the policy or as having any bearing thereon, must have, attached thereto, correct copy of the application, and unless so attached the same shall not be considered a part of the policy or received in evidence. Each application for such policy shall have printed upon it, in large bold-faced type, the following words: 'Under the laws of Massachusetts, each applicant for a policy of insurance, to be issued hereunder, is entitled to be furnished with a copy of this application, attached to any policy issued thereon.” Rev. Laws, c. 118, § 73. The application referred to in this statute is an application in writing. The policy in this case has no reference to any application of the insured, either oral or written. The policy and this application are therefore not within the terms of the statute. The object of the statute is to prevent companies from holding insured persons bound by a contract in writing of which they have no copy. While the language of the statute is broad enough to prevent the use of an application to prove fraud, when the policy refers to an application and it is not attached to the policy, there is no reason for extending the statute by construction, so as to make it prevent the proof of fraud by an application, when the policy contains no reference to an application. It is not the policy of the law to create unnecessary obstacles to the proof of fraud. It has recently been decided that a provision in a policy of insurance, making it incontestable for fraud from its inception, is void as against public policy. Reagan v. Union Mutual Life Insurance Co. (Mass.) 76 N.E. 217. We are of opinion that this statute does not prevent the proof of fraud by the introduction of an application in writing, in cases where no application is...
To continue reading
Request your trial