John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Dietlin

• Citation: 97 R.I. 515,199 A.2d 311
• Decision Date: 06 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 3096,3096
• Parties: JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Donald H. DIETLIN et al. Eq.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island

Page 311

199 A.2d 311

97 R.I. 515

JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. Donald H. DIETLIN et al.

Eq. No. 3096.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

April 6, 1964.

Hurley, Moriarty & Moakler, John W. Moakler, John F. Sherlock, Jr., Providence, for complainant.

John A. Mutter, Providence, for respondents.

JOSLIN, Justice.

This is a bill in equity to declare null and void a policy of life insurance issued by the complainant insuring the lives of Donald H. and Charlotte R. Dietlin, husband and wife, and their minor children, Donna J., Paula R., and Patricia A. Dietlin, all of whom are respondents, as well as the life of Kathleen B. Dietlin, deceased. After appointment of a guardian ad litem to represent the interests of the minor respondents, the cause was heard on bill, answer and proof by a justice of the superior court who entered a decree declaring the policy to be null and void, ordering the respondents to surrender it to the complainant for cancellation, and granting the complainant other incidental relief. In addition the complainant was directed by the decree to refund to the respondents the sum of $14.60, being the amount of the premium paid at the time of the execution of the application for the policy. From that decree the respondents have appealed to this court.

The material facts are not in dispute. The application for the policy was made by Donald H. Dietlin, hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 'insured,' and is dated February 28, 1959. Listed therein for inclusion as insured lives in the policy were all of respondents as well as Kathleen, and in reference to the latter the application states that 'About 2 months ago Kathleen had pneumonia after which her heart was impaired & has been treated at St Josephs Hosp. Prov R I since then.' In the course of the preparation of the application, James R. Lockett, complainant's soliciting agent, questioned whether in the light of her condition Kathleen would be covered in the policy. He told the insured and his wife that Kathleen's name and those of the other minor children were required to be listed on the application, but that he could not assure them that the company would include her as an insured family member.

In the course of the processing of the application by complainant, there was stapled to it a company form designated 'Underwriting Data Sheet' on which, under a heading entitled 'Company's Action On Application,' appear the notations '3-16 Delete Kathleen' and 'Deleted Kathleen,' the latter having been approved on March 24, 1959.

Thereafter a life insurance policy designating the insured, his wife, and all of their minor children as insured family members was received by Lockett from complainant. Attached to it was a copy of the application and a document designated 'Amendment To Application,' the former document having been affixed apparently pursuant to clause 19 of the policy which provided in part that 'The entire contract between the Company and the applicant consists of the policy and the written application, a copy of which is attached at issue.' That amendment, which required the signature of the insured, provided that Kathleen be deleted from the list of the proposed family members on the application and that no coverage should be provided under the...