Keenan v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. of Boston

• Decision Date: 07 June 1929
• Docket Number: No. 6523.,6523.
• Citation: 146 A. 401
• Parties: KEENAN v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF BOSTON, MASS.
• Court: Rhode Island Supreme Court

146 A. 401

KEENAN

v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF BOSTON, MASS.

No. 6523.

Supreme Court of Rhode Island.

June 7, 1929.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Providence and Bristol Counties; Edward W. Blodgett, Judge.

Action by Margaret Keenan against the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company of Boston, Mass. Verdict for plaintiff. On defendant's exceptions. Exceptions overruled, and case remitted.

Hogan & Hogan, of Providence, for plaintiff.

George Hurley and Walter V. Moriarty, both of Providence, for defendant.

STEARNS, C. J. This is an action on a policy of life insurance for $1,000 upon the life of plaintiff's infant sister, brought by plaintiff, the beneficiary.

Sadie Keenan, the insured, 18 years of age, came from Ireland in February, 1926. She lived in Pawtucket with her parents and worked regularly in a factory. On July 4, 1926, she went in bathing and as a result caught cold. She continued to work until July 15, and, although her condition was as she thought improved, on the advice of her sister she consulted a doctor in his office on the night of July 15. He prescribed a tonic for her and told her to come to see him again in two weeks. An agent of the defendant company, who for several weeks had been trying to insure all of the members of the Keenan family, on July 27 succeeded in insuring Sadie Keenan.

The policy, for which application was made by Sadie Keenan, was what is called a "nonmedical" policy, which was issued without any examination of the insured by a physician. By the terms of the policy the application was made a part of the policy, and, as stated in the policy, the contract of insurance was based upon the declarations in the application, which were, in the absence of fraud, to be treated as representations and not as warranties.

Among the statements made by the insured in the application were the following questions and answers: "Question 3. Are you now in good health? Answer. Yes. Question 4. Have you ever had or been treated for any of the following? Answer yes or no to each. If yes give full particulars in space below." Under this question was a list of 28 ailments including "Chronic Cough" and "Consumption." For each ailment under this question the insured answered: "No." "Question 13. Have you within the past five years had medical advice for any disease or disorder not included above? Give full particulars. Answer: No."

This application, with the premium, which was paid by Sadie Keenan, was forwarded to the office of the defendant company in Boston, Mass., where the application was approved July 30. The policy, bearing date July 27, 1926, was issued July 30, and sent to the agent of the defendant company in Pawtucket, where it was delivered by the agent to Sadie Keenan. On July 30 Sadie Keenan again went to the doctor. He testifies that he then felt sure that she had acute pulmonary consumption. Acting on his advice, she went in August to a sanatarium, where she died of consumption January 29, 1927.

The case was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of the policy, with interest. The case is now in this court on defendant's bill of exceptions.

There are numerous exceptions in defendant's bill, but it is unnecessary to consider them in detail. Defendant in its brief states that at the trial the physical condition of Sadie Keenan was the only issue involved; that the testimony was that she was not in good health on July 27, 1926; that she then had consumption and knew she was seriously ill.

The following facts are established by the evidence. Sadie Keenan did have consumption on July 27, 1926, but she did not know it and was not informed of that fact by the doctor; she supposed she was suffering from a cold, and her failure to state in her application that she had consulted a doctor was not because of any fraudulent intent but from ignorance of the relevancy of such a statement.

The question is, Did this misrepresentation avoid the policy? By its terms the policy was to be effective on the date of the application, if approved at the home office. The application provided: "B. That if payment of the premium has been made with this application, the insurance (subject to the terms and conditions of any policy issued hereunder) shall be in force from the date of the completion of Part B of this application" * * *—"and that whether the premium is paid with the application or otherwise, delivery, and payment shall constitute an acceptance of the policy and of all its conditions." The premium was paid and the policy was delivered and accepted in this state. It was a Rhode Island contract, and hence is to be...