Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v. Verneuille

• Decision Date: 14 May 1908
• Citation: 156 Ala. 592,47 So. 72
• Parties: MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. v. VERNEUILLE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

47 So. 72

156 Ala. 592

MANHATTAN LIFE INS. CO. v. VERNEUILLE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

May 14, 1908

Rehearing Denied July 3, 1908.

Appeal from Law and Equity Court, Mobile County; Saffold Berney Judge.

Action by Carrie C. Verneuille against the Manhattan Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

The complaint is in code form. The following pleas were filed thereto: (1) The general issue. "(2) The defendant did not enter into the alleged contract sued on. (3) The alleged contract of insurance sued on never became binding upon the defendant. (4) The policies sued on never became binding on the defendant, for that it was executed by defendant in pursuance of a written application of George W. Verneuille to defendant, made on or about April 29, 1906, which application provided that there should be no contract of insurance until a policy should be issued by the defendant and manually received and accepted during the good health of said applicant, and that said policy was not manually received and accepted during the good health of said applicant. (5) The policy sued on never became binding upon defendant, for that it was executed by defendant in pursuance of the written application of George W. Verneuille to defendant, made on or about April 29, 1906; that by the terms of said policy the statement and covenant contained in said application were made a part of said policy; that in and by said application it was expressly agreed that there should be no contract of insurance until a policy should be issued by defendant and manually received and accepted during the good health of the applicant; that said policy was not manually received and accepted during the good health of said applicant. (6) Plaintiff ought not to recover on the policy sued on, for that, on or about April 28, 1906, the said George W Verneuille made a written application to defendant for said policy, in which application he agreed that it should be a part and the basis of such contract of insurance, and further expressly agreed therein that there should be no contract of insurance until a policy should be issued by defendant and manually received and accepted during the good health of the applicant, and that said policy was not manually received and accepted during the good health of the applicant. (7) Defendant says that in and by the terms of said contract or policy of insurance sued on the statement and covenant contained in the application of said George W. Verneuille to the defendant, made on or about April 29, 1906, for said policy, the foundation of this suit, were plainly and expressly made a part of said policy issued to said Verneuille by said defendant; that in and by the terms and covenants of said application and said entire contract of insurance it was expressly agreed and provided that there should be no contract of insurance until a policy should be issued by defendant and manually received and accepted during the good health of said applicant, and defendant avers that said policy was not manually received and accepted during the good health of said applicant, but while said George W Verneuille was lying on his deathbed, suffering from a severe illness, to wit, meningitis, from which said disease said applicant in less than three days thereafter died." (8) Same as 7 down to and including the words, "thereafter died," and adding: "And defendant says that said receipting and accepting said policy here sued on, under said circumstances and during the said illness of said George W Verneuille, increased the risk of loss on the said property. Wherefore defendant says that it is not liable." (9) Same as 7 down to the words, "thereafter died," and adds: "And defendant says that said receipting and accepting of said policy here sued on under said circumstances and during the said illness of said Verneuille was done with actual intent to deceive said defendant." (10) Same as 9, except that it alleges that the receipting and accepting and its circumstances was a fraud upon the defendant.

Demurrers were interposed separately to pleas 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 on the following grounds: "(1) The allegation of the pleas that the contract of insurance never became binding upon the defendant was a mere conclusion of the pleader. (2) The pleas fail to state any fact showing that the defendant was ignorant of the fact that the said Verneuille was not in good health at the time...