Iowa Life Insurance Co. v. Haughton

• Decision Date: 19 March 1909
• Docket Number: 6,318
• Citation: 87 N.E. 702,46 Ind.App. 467
• Parties: IOWA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HAUGHTON, ADMINISTRATOR
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

87 N.E. 702

46 Ind.App. 467

IOWA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. HAUGHTON, ADMINISTRATOR

No. 6,318

Court of Appeals of Indiana

March 19, 1909

Rehearing denied May 14, 1910.

Transfer denied November 22, 1910.

From Daviess Circuit Court; Hileary Q. Houghton, Judge.

Action by Charles E. Haughton, as administrator of the estate of George A. Haughton, deceased, against the Iowa Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

L. A Stebbins, Louis B. Ewbank, W. R. Gardiner, C. K. Tharp, C. G. Gardiner and W. C. Johnson, for appellant.

A. M. McClure, W. A. Cullop, George W. Shaw, J. P. Haughton, Samuel Emison and A. J. Padgett, for appellee.

MYERS, J. Watson, C. J., Comstock and Roby, JJ., concur. Rabb and Hadley, JJ., dissent. RABB, J., dissents. Hadley, J., concurring.

OPINION

MYERS, J.

Appellee brought this action against appellant to enforce payment of an insurance policy issued by appellant upon the life of appellee's decedent, and made payable to his representative.

The complaint was in one paragraph, and in the ordinary form on such contracts. To the complaint appellant filed two affirmative answers, averring that the assured, as a part of his medical examination, made false answers to certain questions therein, and such answers were expressly declared to be warranties, and that such answers were taken as the basis of, and as a consideration for, the contract in suit. Also, that said assured, for the purpose of procuring from appellant said contract, wrongfully and fraudulently, and as an inducement to appellant to issue said contract of insurance, and for the purpose of cheating and defrauding it, made certain false and fraudulent statements in regard to his health, which appellant, without any knowledge or notice to the contrary, believed to be true, and thereupon issued the contract sued on in this action. A reply in two paragraphs alleged that appellant had actual knowledge of the truth of all the facts set up in its answers before and at the time it issued said policy. The issues thus formed were submitted to a jury for trial, and resulted in a general verdict for appellee. The jury also returned answers to twenty-eight interrogatories. Over appellant's motion for judgment on the answers to the interrogatories, notwithstanding the general verdict, and over its motion for a new trial, judgment was rendered on the verdict in favor of appellee and against appellant. Errors are here assigned on the action of the court in overruling each of said motions.

The jury, in answer to interrogatories, found that certain facts, averred as the basis of appellant's answer, were true, but these facts, in view of the issues in this case, are not in irreconcilable conflict with the general verdict, and the motion for judgment was correctly overruled.

One of the reasons for a new trial was that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence.

The only evidence about which there is no controversy may be said to exhibit the following facts: The decedent was born on October 25, 1870. He was a school teacher by profession. He was unmarried. In the fall of 1898, his right testicle being from four to six times its normal size, he consulted a physician at Vincennes, to whom he stated that he first noticed an enlargement of that organ in the preceding February. On December 19, 1898, the decedent's right testicle was removed, and he died on July 20, 1899. Cancer of the stomach was given as the cause of death. During the summer and fall of 1898 he occasionally assisted agents in soliciting life insurance. On November 30, 1898, the application of decedent for a policy of $ 5,000 was accepted by the Life Insurance Company of America, and a policy issued for that amount. On December 9, 1898, an agent for the Aetna Life Insurance Company secured from said decedent an application for a policy for $ 2,000, which in due time was issued by that company. On April 6, 1899, an agent for appellant secured from decedent an application, on which the policy in suit was issued.

Doctor Andrew J. Haughton, the father of decedent, resided and practiced medicine at Oaktown, Indiana, for several years prior to his death on January 25, 1890, and at the time of his death was sixty-one years old. In May, 1885, he went to Tonawanda, New York, his home prior to his removal west. Before going to Tonawanda he had been sick eleven or twelve weeks with typhoid fever. From Tonawanda he went to Buffalo, New York, and entered a hospital for medical treatment, and remained there about one year. He was admitted to the Central Insane Hospital at Indianapolis on May 13, 1886, and was discharged June 14, 1886. His wife says that when he returned to Indiana he entered a sanatorium at Indianapolis, where he remained for awhile, and then returned to Oaktown, his home, and continued to practice medicine up to a short time before his death; that he did not have consumption, nor did any member of the family ever have consumption; that he was at no time insane or a person of unsound mind.

This cause was defended on the ground that certain questions propounded by the medical examiner to the assured were falsely answered, and by the terms of the application and contract of insurance sued on such answers were warranted to be true. The questions and answers, so far as they are material, are as follows: "Q. Have you, or either of your parents, or any of your brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts or other near relatives, now or ever had consumption, cancer, gout, scrofula, Bright's disease, diabetes, epilepsy, insanity or other hereditary diseases, other than appear above? A. No. Q. Have you now, or have you ever had, any of the following diseases? (Answer 'Yes' or 'No' to each.)" (The names of fifty-six diseases or ailments are submitted, among which are the following: "Colic," "disease of the liver," "disease of the spleen," "cancer or tumor," "palpitation," and "surgical operation." To all of which the answer as recorded is "No." "Q. Have you ever had any ailment, injury or infirmity whatever, not already named. A. No. Q. Give name and address of each physician consulted or who has prescribed for you during the past five years, and the dates and causes of consultation. A. S. J. Lisman, Oaktown, Indiana, consulted for colds, usually occurring during the winter months."

Appellant insists that decedent's father had been insane; that decedent at the time he answered the questions propounded by the medical examiner was afflicted with cancer; that his right testicle had been removed by surgeons, and that prior to his application for insurance he had consulted physicians, not named in his answers, for causes not stated. These were issues tendered by appellant, and it had the burden of proving them. Bliss, Life Insurance (2d ed.) § 365.

It is the law that false statements made for the purpose of securing insurance, and relied upon by the insurer, will authorize the letter to avoid the contract. But the question in this case, as presented to the jury, was, Did the assured make the alleged false answers?

The general verdict on that issue amounts to a finding that he did not, and on appeal all reasonable presumptions will be indulged in support of the proceedings and judgment of the lower court. The evidence was not all in favor of the appellant. There is evidence in the record from which the jury might draw inferences clearly sustaining the general verdict.

This being true, our opinion as to the importance or controlling influence of certain parts of the evidence, or the weight that should be given to it in determining the facts, must yield to the verdict of the jury and the judgment of the trial court.

The questions in the medical examination blank were prepared by appellant, and the answers thereto were written therein by its medical examiner. Present at this examination, other than the assured and the examiner, were appellant's agent Smith, who took decedent's application, and a part of the time, Doctor Sprinkle, who was a partner of the doctor employed by appellant to make the examination. Doctor Sprinkle testified that he was a physician, and was a partner of Doctor Johnson at the time Johnson examined Haughton for insurance with appellant; that he was acquainted with the insured, George Haughton; that while sitting at his desk, about five feet away from Doctor Johnson, he "heard Doctor Johnson propound this question: 'Have you ever had a surgical operation,' and he said: 'Doctor, you know I have, and I suppose that will bar me from life insurance,' and Doctor Johnson told him he would fix that, and I got up while they were talking and left." Another witness, James E. Cullop, testified that about the middle of March, 1899, George Haughton, in company with James G. Smith, who represented the Iowa Life Insurance Company, came to his house. "Smith asked me about taking life insurance, and he said: 'I feel quite sure if you will take insurance Mr. Haughton will.' I made the remark, I had an operation performed on me, and he wanted to know if everyone here had had operations, and I said 'No' He then said: 'He (referring to Haughton) has had an operation performed. That won't make any difference. I will see Johnson, the medical examining physician. Both of you are all right. I want you, Mr. Cullop, to take a policy in my company. I feel sure if you take it Mr. Haughton will,' and I said I hadn't thought much about insurance and I didn't believe either one would pass. He said castration hurt no one, and went on to explain--He said you could castrate stock and he said there wasn't one out of twenty that died." On April 29, 1899, the witness was examined by Doctor Johnson for a policy of life insurance to be issued by appellant. The...