Jessup v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 43077
| Decision Date | 13 March 1968 |
| Docket Number | No. 43077,No. 2,43077,2 |
| Parties | Margie B. JESSUP v. FRANKLIN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Maurice Byers, Dublin, for appellant.
Smith & Harrington, Will Ed Smith, Eastman, for appellee. Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Plaintiff (appellant) brought this action to recover under a life insurance policy issued on her husband in which she was the named beneficiary. The policy was issued in March 1961 and continued in force until the policy lapsed in September 1964 for non-payment of premiums. In November 1964 the insured made application for re-instatement, as the policy provided might be done, by written application with evidence of insurability and payment of all past due premiums. The policy was re-instated and the insured died in August 1965. Plaintiff's demand for payment of benefits under the policy was refused by defendant for the reason that the proofs of death submitted caused an investigation to be made, which revealed that the application for re-instatement contained misrepresentations material to the risk.
By the application for re-instatement signed by the insured, the insured declared and affirmed as true, to the best of his knowledge and belief, that he had had no illnesses or injuries in the past 5 years; that he had been treated by no physicians or practitioners in the past 5 years; and that he was in good health. By the application the insured agreed that: 'To the extent permitted by statute, if any material statements or answers to the question herein given shall prove within a period of two years from date of such reinstatement to be incomplete or untrue then the reinstatement of said policy, if granted upon this application, shall be void and of no effect * * *'
The policy which defendant sought to have re-instated provided that: 'Only the president or secretary has power in behalf of the company * * * to make or modify this or any contract of insurance * * * and the company shall not be bound by any promise or representation heretofore or hereafter given by any agent or person other than the above.'
The defendant made a motion for summary judgment. The evidence was that the defendant did conduct an investigation which showed that the insured died from acute myocardial infarction due to arteriosclerotic heart disease, due to chronic alcoholism, and that the insured had had 10 hospital confinements from March 1962 to March 1964, with diagnoses of acute gastroenteritis, acute alcoholism, cerebral concussion, chronic alcoholism, acute alcohol intoxication, acute brain syndrome with alcohol and paraldehyde intoxication and chronic alcohol addiction. Five physicians attended the insured during this period.
The assistant vice president and claims director for defendant testified that the policy would not have been re-instated had the facts of his illnesses, treatments and confinements been revealed.
The plaintiff testified that the defendant's local agent, Lee Palmer, knew of her husband's alcoholic problems when the original policy was issued, and also knew, prior to the lapse of the policy and at the time the policy was re-instated, that her husband was an alcoholic and had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Perry
...832, 834, 10 S.E.2d 129; State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 107 Ga.App. 348(1), 130 S.E.2d 144; Jessup v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 117 Ga.App. 389(1), 160 S.E.2d 612; American Liberty Ins. Co. v. Sanders, 120 Ga.App. 1(2), 169 S.E.2d 342; Massey v. Cotton States Life Ins. Co., 70 ......
-
Ranger Insurance Company v. Culberson
...by Culberson himself, and we have no indication in the record that Culberson even saw that document. Compare Jessup v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 1968, 117 Ga.App. 389, 160 S.E.2d 612; State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 1963, 107 Ga.App. 348, 130 S.E.2d 144. In the answer to an......
-
Case v. RGA Ins. Services
...facie charged with knowledge of the contents of an application signed by him, but this may be rebutted." Jessup v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 117 Ga.App. 389, 391(2), 160 S.E.2d 612 (1968). With regard to whether one who signed the application may escape the consequences of an agent inserting ......
-
United Family Life Ins. Co. v. Shirley, 54429
...Assoc. v. Marsh, 60 Ga.App. 431(2), 4 S.E.2d 84; Gen. Assurance Corp. v. Roberts, 92 Ga.App. 834, 90 S.E.2d 70; Jessup v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 117 Ga.App. 389, 160 S.E.2d 612; Brannon v. Allstate Ins. Co., 120 Ga.App. 467, 171 S.E.2d 319; All-American Life & Cas. Co. v. Saunders, supra; ......
-
Misrepresentations in insurance applications: dangers in those lies.
...A.L.R.3d 6 (1969); See also Mathis v. Minnesota Mut. Life Ins. Co., 302 F. Supp. 998 (M.D.N.C. 1969); Jessup v. Franklin Life Ins. Co., 160 S.E.2d 612 (Ga. Ct. App. 1968); Youngblood v Allstate Fire Ins. Co., 349 So. 2d 462 (La. Ct. App. 1977); Small v. Coastal States Life Ins. Co., 128 S.E......