Levasseur v. Knights of Columbus
| Decision Date | 05 March 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 10419,10419 |
| Citation | 96 R.I. 22,188 A.2d 469 |
| Parties | Helen LEVASSEUR, Adm'x v. KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS. Ex. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
Macioci & Morrison, Joseph J. Macioci, Newport, for plaintiff.
Anthony A. Giannini, Eugene A. Liberati, Providence, for defendant.
This action of trespass on the case for negligence is here on the plaintiff's exception to the decision of the superior court sustaining the defendant's demurrer to the plaintiff's declaration.
The defendant is a fraternal benefit society organized under the laws of the state of Connecticut and duly licensed to engage in the business of selling life insurance to its various members. On February 17, 1960 plaintiff's husband applied for a policy of life insurance with defendant, designating plaintiff as the beneficiary in the application. The first premium was paid by plaintiff's husband and sent with the application. The declaration alleges that on February 19, 1960, at the request of defendant, plaintiff's husband was examined by a physician employed by defendant; that he executed a signed statement containing such information concerning his physical condition as was required of him by said physician on behalf of defendant; and that immediately thereafter such statement was submitted to defendant by its physician.
The declaration further alleges that thereafter plaintiff's husband received no further inquiries from defendant except one in April or May 1960, requesting his authorization for certain medical information from a hospital in Fall River, Massachusetts; that he immediately furnished such authorization to defendant; and that he died on June 21, 1960, before any action had been taken by defendant on his application.
The plaintiff brought this action, as administratrix of her husband's estate and as the beneficiary designated in the application, to recover the amount of the policy as damages for the alleged breach.
The declaration alleges in substance that defendant had a duty 'to act upon said application within a reasonable length of time and to issue or to deliver a policy in accordance with said application, or to reject the same and notify' plaintiff's husband 'of its action'; that defendant 'negligently, carelessly, and wrongfully' breached such duty; and that as a proximate result of such breach plaintiff's husband 'was unable to obtain the policy of insurance applied for, and was deprived of his opportunity to obtain a similar policy from another company.'
The trial justice sustained the demurrer on the ground that the declaration failed to state a cause of action, stating in his decision...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ferreira v. Strack
...429, 432, 408 A.2d 608, 609 (1979); Castellucci v. Castellucci, 96 R.I. 34, 38, 188 A.2d 467, 469 (1963); Levasseur v. Knights of Columbus, 96 R.I. 22, 24, 188 A.2d 469, 471 (1963). The majority of courts in other jurisdictions faced with the question of extending common-law tort liability ......
-
Amaral v. Cabral, 82-245-A
...429, 432, 408 A.2d 608, 609 (1979); Castellucci v. Castellucci, 96 R.I. 34, 38, 188 A.2d 467, 469 (1963); Levasseur v. Knights of Columbus, 96 R.I. 22, 24, 188 A.2d 469, 471 (1963). During the pendency of this action, the Legislature enacted a statute that provides for the recovery of damag......
-
Atlantic Home Insulation, Inc. v. James J. Reilly, Inc., 86-183-A
...life insurance that no duty existed on behalf of an insurer to make a prompt decision on such an application. Levasseur v. Knights of Columbus, 96 R.I. 22, 188 A.2d 469 (1963). Consequently, the risk of delay is placed upon the applicant rather than on the insurer. The applicant's agent, in......