Knights & Ladies of Sec. v. Grey

• Decision Date: 12 March 1918
• Docket Number: Case Number: 8308
• Parties: KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY v. GREY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1918 OK 160

172 P. 933

70 Okla. 79

KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY v. GREY.

Case Number: 8308

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: March 12, 1918

Syllabus

¶0 Insurance -- Life Insurance -- Warranties--Effect.

An applicant for life insurance warranted in his application that the answers made by him to the questions propounded by the medical examiner were true, full, and correct, and agreed that the same, together with the application, should form the basis of his agreement with the order and should constitute a warranty. The certificate issued upon application recited that the application and the report of the medical examiner are true in all respects, and that each and every part shall be held to be a warranty and to form the only basis of liability of the order, and, if not true, the certificate shall be null and void. Held, that the answers of the insured to the questions propounded by the medical examiner were warranties, and a false statement made by the insured as to his having applied to the Knights and Ladies of Security, or any other life insurance company, or association, or society, and been rejected, rendered the policy void.

Error from District Court, Oklahoma County; Edward Dewes Oldfield, Judge.

Action by Fannie A. Grey against the Knights and Ladies of Security. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed, and cause remanded for new trial.

Hainer, Burns & Toney, for plaintiff in error.

T. J. McComb and Stephen C. Treadwell, for defendant in error.

HOOKER, C.

¶1 The plaintiff in error on October 18, 1912, issued a beneficiary certificate to Henry H. Grey payable to his wife. He died in March, 1914, and upon the refusal of the plaintiff in error to pay the amount claimed to be due upon said policy the beneficiary instituted this action.

¶2 In the petition it is alleged that the policy was issued upon the life of said Henry H. Grey, payable upon his death to the defendant in error, and that the said insured had died in March, 1914, and there was due by virtue thereof a certain fixed sum.

¶3 The answer admits the execution of the insurance contract, etc., but denied liability upon several grounds, all of which save one has been decided adversely to plaintiff in error in the case of M. B. A. v. White, 66 Okla. 241, 168 P. 794.

¶4 It is claimed by plaintiff in error that it issued said certificate and thereby promised to pay the beneficiary said sum only upon the said Henry H. Grey having complied with all of the terms and provisions of said certificate, and with the by-laws and constitution of the society, and with the warranties, representations, and agreement contained in the written application for said insurance by the said insured, together with the statements made by him in his answers to the questions propounded to him in his medical examination, and that said insured falsely and fraudulently represented to its medical examiner that he had never applied for membership to any other life insurance company, or association, or society and been rejected, whereas, in truth and in fact, he had prior to the time his application was made here anti his answer given to said medical examiner or said certificate issued to him made an application to the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York for insurance, and had been rejected, and that by the terms and conditions of the certificate sued upon, the application and the medical examiner's report constituted a part thereof, and was a warranty that the insured had never applied to any other life insurance company, or association, or society, and been rejected, and that by virtue thereof, said warranty was broken, and said policy rendered void, and no liability accrued to it on account thereof.

¶5 The certificate sued upon contains the following stipulations:

"[1] That the application for membership in this order made by the said member, together with the report of the medical examiner which is on file in the office of the National Secretary, and both of which are made a part hereof, are true in all respects, and each and every part thereof shall be held to be a strict warranty and to form the only basis of the liability of the order to said member, or said member's beneficiaries, the same as if fully set forth in this certificate.

"[2] That if said application and medical examination shall not be true in each and every part thereof, then this beneficiary certificate shall, as t said member, or said member's beneficiaries, be absolutely null and void.

"[3] This certificate is issued in consideration of the warranties and agreements made by the person named in this certificate in said member's application to become a member of this order and in said member's medical examination."

¶6 In the application or medical examination of the insured, the following questions and answers thereto appear:

"25. [a] Have you ever applied for membership in the Knights and Ladies of Security, or any other life insurance company or association or society, and been rejected? No. * * *

"26. Have you ever made application to any life insurance company, association, or society and withdrawn it before rejection, or been advised by any medical examiner that he could not pass you on account of your physical condition, or personal or family history? No."

¶7 And in addition thereto the following agreement is twice embraced therein.

"I hereby make application for a beneficiary certificate. * * * And I hereby declare that the foregoing answers and statements and the answers to the questions propounded to me by the medical examiner are warranted to be true, full and correct, and I acknowledge and agree that the said answers and statements, with this application shall form the basis of my agreement with the order and constitute a warranty. I hereby make my medical examination a part of this application and the medical examination be considered a part of my beneficiary certificate."

¶8 In Woodmen v. Prater, 24 Okla. 214, 103 P. 558. 23 L.R.A. [N. S.] 917, 20 Ann. Cas. 287, it is held:

"[2] An applicant for a life insurance policy warranted in her application that her answers to the medical examiner on the reverse side of her application were true and accurate,' and that they should constitute the basis for the covenant. The policy recited that it was executed in consideration of the warranties made in the application, and that the application should be made a part of the covenant. Held, that the answers of the insured to the medical examiner were her warranties and that a false statement made therein by her rendered the policy void.

¶9 In 14 R C. L., p. 1080, it is said:

"A statement as to previous rejections is material as a matter of law, and if false, avoids the policy regardless of the good faith of the applicant, and a fortiori where the truthfulness of all statements in the application is made a condition to the validity of the policy, a false statement that the insured has not applied for other insurance avoids of the policy. A representation by an applicant that no application for insurance by him had not been granted is untrue where he had withdrawn an application to avoid a rejection. And the same is true of a representation that no application had been rejected."

¶10 See, also, the following cases: Owen v. United States Surety Cop., 38 Okla. 123, 131 P. 1091; Cobb v. Covenant Mutual Ben Ass'n. 153 Mass. 176, 26 N.E. 230, 10 L.R.A. 666, 25 Am. St. Rep. 619: Metro Life Ins. Co. v. McTague, 49 N.J.L. 587, 9 A. 766, 60 Am. Rep. 661; Bradley v. United States Life Ins. Ass'n, 60 F. 727. 9 C. C. A. 252; Sladden v. N.Y. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 86 F. 102, 29 C. C. A. 596; Pennsylvania Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co. v. Mechanics' Savings Bank & Trust Co., 72 F. 413, 19 C. C. A. 286, 28 L.R.A. 33; Home Friendly Society v. Berry, 94 Ga. 606, 21 S.E. 583; Aloe v. Mut. Reserve Life Ass'n, 147 Mo. 561, 49 S.W. 553; McCullom v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 55 Hun 103, 8 N.Y.S. 249; Id., 27 N.E. 412; March v. Met. Life Ins. Co., 186 Pa. 629, 40 A. 1100, 65 Am. St. rep. 887; Moore v. Mut. Res. Fund Life Ass'n, 133 Mich. 526 95 N.W. 573; Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Lunkenheimer, 127 Ind. 536, 26 N.E. 1082: Silverman v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 24 Misc. 399, 53 N.Y.S. 407; Finch v. M. W. A., 113 Mich. 646, 71 N.W. 1104; Am. Mut. Aid Society v. Bronger, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 284; Id., 91 Ky. 406, 15 S.W. 1118, 12 Ky. Law Rep. 971; and Clemans v. Sup. Assembly royal soc. of Good Fellows, 131 N.Y. 485, 30 N.E. 496, 16 L.R.A. 33.

¶11 Under the authority of Com. Cas. Co. v. Owen, 38 Okla. 107, 131 P. 1084, and of Shawnee Life Ins. Co. v. Watkins, 53 Okla. 188, 156 P. 181, the provisions of section 3467 Rev. Law 1910, are not applicable to the contract involved in the present case

¶12 In 6 R. C. L. § 227, p. 837, it is said:

"The whole context is to be considered in ascertaining the intention of the parties, even though the immediate object of inquiry is the meaning of an isolated clause. * * *"

¶13 And in 9 Cyc. p. 577, it is said:

"The first and main rule of construction is that the intent of the parties as expressed in the words they have used must govern."

¶14 Applying the rules above given to the words used in questions and answers above cited, how must they be construed and what is their meaning?

¶15 It is asserted by the beneficiary that the doctrine of ejusdem generis should be applied here, and, when so applied, that the words "or any other life insurance company or association or society" must be construed to mean organizations of a kindred nature to the Knights and Ladies of Security. With this contention we cannot agree.

¶16 The intention and aim of the interrogatories was to embrace all character of insurance companies. Not alone the Knights and Ladies of Security and other kindred societies or organizations, but all insurance companies issuing policies. This is apparent from question 26, immediately following.

¶17 It might not be amiss to refer to section 3402, Rev. Laws 1910,...