Kilty v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 26 June 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. 41982,41982 |
| Citation | 287 Minn. 403,178 N.W.2d 734 |
| Parties | John C. KILTY, Respondent, v. MUTUAL OF OMAHA INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. On appeal from a judgment where there was no motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, our review is limited to a consideration of whether the evidence sustains the verdict under any applicable rule of law.
2. Where there is insufficient evidence of misrepresentation in an application for insurance to entitle the insurer to rescission, a factual question is raised as to whether an alleged rescission by consent is voidable because obtained through bad faith or fraud on the part of the insurer.
Cragg & Bailly, Minneapolis, for appellant.
John Rheinberger, Stillwater, for respondent.
Heard before KNUTSON, C.J., and ROGOSHESKE, SHERAN, PETERSON, and FRANK T. GALLAGHER, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the district court.
This action was brought to recover certain medical expenses under a health and accident policy issued by defendant insurance company. Defendant claimed nonliability on the ground that the policy had been rescinded by mutual consent. The trial court instructed the jury that the alleged rescission was void and of no effect if secured by the insurer in bad faith or if induced by any misrepresentation on the part of the insurer. A verdict was returned for plaintiff in the amount of $3,499.58. The trial court entered brief findings of fact and conclusions of law confirming the verdict. There were no post- trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial. Judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff, and defendant appeals only from that judgment.
1. On appeal from a judgment where there was no motion for a new trial or judgment notwithstanding the verdict, our review is limited to a consideration of whether the evidence sustains the verdict under any applicable rule of law. State, by Lord, v. Bradac, 257 Minn. 467, 102 N.W.2d 34; Kedrowski v. Czech, 244 Minn. 111, 69 N.W.2d 337; Nelson v. Swedish Hospital, 241 Minn. 551, 64 N.W.2d 38; Phelan v. Carey, 222 Minn. 1, 23 N.W.2d 10.
Defendant's contention on appeal is that it is entitled to judgment on any interpretation of the evidence because plaintiff accepted and cashed the check defendant tendered as a refund of all unearned premiums paid under the policy. Defendant asserts that this conduct constituted consent to rescission of the policy as a matter of law under Peterson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 185 Minn. 208, 240 N.W. 659. The Peterson case did not involve the issue of bad faith or fraud on the part of the insurer in procuring consent to the rescission. In that case, there was compelling evidence of misrepresentation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pitner v. Federal Crop Ins. Corp.
...as to whether an alleged rescission by consent is viodable because obtained through bad faith or fraud on the part of the insurer.' 178 N.W.2d at 736. In Fox v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., supra, the Supreme Court of Washington, after holding that the question of full disclosure had proper......
-
Pruco Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co.
...is a Minnesota case, based on Minnesota precedent, which has never been cited by a Rhode Island court. See Kilty v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 287 Minn. 403, 178 N.W.2d 734 (1970). And in any event, the case is distinguishable. In Kilty, the Minnesota court noted that there was no evidence of ......
-
Westgor v. Grimm
...rule of law. See Johnsrud v. Tri-State Sales, Inc., 353 N.W.2d 255, 257 (Minn.Ct.App.1984) (citing Kilty v. Mutual of Omaha Insurance Co., 287 Minn. 403, 178 N.W.2d 734 (1970)). These issues are subject to review because they involve interpretation of the applicable rules of ...
-
Johnsrud v. Tri-State Sales, Inc.
..."any applicable rule of law." Hartman v. Blanding's, Inc., 288 Minn. 415, 423, 181 N.W.2d 466, 470 (1970); Kilty v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 287 Minn. 403, 178 N.W.2d 734, 736 (1970). II. Borchert argues that, in determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment against i......