Mass. Benefit Life Ass'n v. Robinson

• Decision Date: 24 May 1898
• Citation: 30 S.E. 918,104 Ga. 256
• Parties: MASSACHUSETTS BENEFIT LIFE ASS'N v. ROBINSON.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

30 S.E. 918

104 Ga. 256

MASSACHUSETTS BENEFIT LIFE ASS'N

v.ROBINSON.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 24, 1898.

Life Insurance Policy—Right to Contest—Construction—Waiver op Forfeiture—Payment of Premium—Reinstatement—Misrepresentations—Questions for Court and Jury —Representations of Medical Examiner—Attorney's Fees—Damages.

1. A stipulation in a policy of life insurance that "this policy is incontestable after three years from its date, provided three full yearly premiums have been made upon it, except that error in the age of the insured is open to adjustment, " in a manner therein prescribed, is valid; and after payment of the premiums called for, and the lapse of time specified, the insurer is, with the exception indicated, precluded from setting up any defense based upon misrepresentations or warranties made by the insured in his application, whether fraudulent or otherwise.

2. If a policy of insurance is capable of being construed in two ways, that interpretation must be placed upon it which is most favorable to the insured.

3. A receipt by the insurer of a premium after default in the payment thereof according to the terms of the policy will generally constitute a waiver of the forfeiture of the policy on account of such default.

4. The giving of a note by the insured for a premium, and the acceptance of such note by the insurer as payment for the premium, is equivalent to cash payment; and default in the payment of such note at maturity will not work a forfeiture of the policy, unless it is so expressly stipulated by the parties at the time such note was given and received.

5. Where a policy of insurance became lapsed by the nonpayment of premiums, and the insured obtained a reinstatement by a fraudulent misrepresentation of material facts, then the contract for reinstatement was void, and the policy remained lapsed.

6. The recitals in an application for reinstatement made by the insured upon a mistaken idea that such application was necessary, when in point of fact it was not, are not binding on him; and any misrepresentations therein made, induced by the statement of the insurer that the policy had lapsed, and that such representations were necessary for his reinstatement, will not constitute a valid defense to a suit on the policy.

7. Whether a given state of admitted or proved facts works a forfeiture or lapse of a policy of insurance is a question of law. for the decision of the court. When there is an issue about the facts, the matter should besubmitted to the jury, under proper instructions.

8. The materiality of representations made by the insured in his application, under the laws of Georgia, is a question for the jury to decide. The manner in which this question shall be determined, being a matter affecting the remedy only, and not the "validity, form, or effect of the contract, " is to be controlled by the lex fori, and not by the lex loci contractus.

9. The declarations made by the medical examiner, in a letter to his insurance company, as to the habits of the applicant, are not binding on the latter, notwithstanding the fact that the application states that the medical examiner is the agent of the applicant in filling up the same, and the applicant knew that, under certain conditions, a letter is to be written to the company by the medical examiner in relation to the application and the examination.

10. A statement in an application for reinstatement of a policy of insurance, rendered necessary by the lapse of the same, that the insured is in "good health, " is not to be construed as a warranty that his health is absolutely perfect, but only that his health is practically the same as it was when the policy was issued.

11. There was no error requiring the grant of a new trial. If any error was committed, it was either favorable to the defendant, or harmless, under the facts of the case. The case was fairly submitted to the jury, and there was evidence sufficient to authorize a finding of every issue in favor of the plaintiff, except the one hereafter alluded to. Except as above set out, the questions involved are not of such a character as to require extended discussion. There was no evidence to authorize the conclusion that the defense was not made in good faith. The verdict for attorney's fees and damages is therefore unauthorized, and direction is given that the portion of the verdict and judgment relating to attorney's fees and 5 per cent. damages be written off, and that the verdict for the principal and interest due on the policy stand, and that the costs in this court, and all costs which have accrued in the court below since the rendition of the verdict, be taxed against the defendant in error.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Atlanta; H. M. Reid, Judge.

Action by Nora Robinson against the Massachusetts Benefit Life Association. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant brings error. Affirmed, with directions.

Abbott & Cox, W. H. & E. R. Black, A. R. Bryan, and Glenn & Rountree, for plaintiff in error.

Dorsey, Brewster & Howell, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. On March 12, 1888, John M. Robinson made an application to the Massachusetts Benefit Life Association for a policy of insurance upon his life for the sum of $3,-000. To the application was attached the following certificate: "I, John Madison Robinson, of Atlanta, county of Fulton, state of Georgia, do hereby warrant each and all the foregoing particulars and statements to be true, and that I have not in this application for above-named contract concealed or withheld any material circumstance or information concerning the past or present state of my health or habits of life; and I do hereby acknowledge, consent, and agree that any untrue or fraudulent statements made above by me or any one else, or to any medical examiner of said Massachusetts Benefit Association, or any concealment of facts by me or any one else, may forfeit and cancel all rights to any benefit under the above-named contract." To the application was also attached the following questions and answers: "Q. Are you, and have you always been, of sober and temperate habits? A. I am now, and have been for some time, a total abstainer; formerly drank occasionally. Q. Do you usually have good health, and are you in good health? A. Yes. Q. What sickness, disease, or injury have you ever had? A. Pneumonia. Q. How long since you were under the care of a physician, and for what cause? A. Not since 1869, when I had pneumonia." The medical examination attached to such application was made and signed by C. C. Green, M. D., and had attached to It the following certificate, signed by the insured: "I further declare and agree that my answers to the above questions put by the medical examiner are correct and true, and that I am the person who signed the application on the opposite side, and was examined as above." The questions and answers referred to in the certificate, which are material to this investigation, are as follows: "Q. Has the party had any severe illness or injury? A. Had pneumonia nineteen years ago, and has fully recovered. Q. Is the party deaf, dumb, blind, lame, or maimed in any way? A. No. Q. Has weight increased or diminished, and how much, in two years? A. Have gained seven pounds in two years. Q. How often does the party use spirits? A. None at present Q. How often does the party use beer or wine? A. None at present. Q. How often does the party use tobacco? A. Chews occasionally. Q. What has been his habit through life? A. Has drank some in the past. Q. Do you consider this a first-class, fair, doubtful, or bad risk? A. Fair risk. Q. What feature in the case makes you rate it other than the best? A. From past habits. (See letter). Q. Do you advise the risk? Yes or no? A. Yes. (If you have any hesitation in answering; unqualifiedly, Yes, ' give the association the benefit of the doubt, and answer 'No, ' writing a confidential letter to the medical director at the home office.)" On March 17, 1888, the policy was issued, and contained, among others, the following stipulations: "That the statements and declarations made by and on behalf of said member in his application to become a benefit member of said association, which are hereby referred to as the basis of this contract, and are a part thereof, and on the faith of which this policy is issued, are warranted to be in all respects true, and that no fact has been suppressed, relating to his health or circumstances, affecting the character of the risk, or the judgment of the association in accepting the same." "This contract shall be void if said member shall at any time contract or fall into gross and confirmed habits of intoxication."

Subsequently the policy above referred to was surrendered to the company, and one for $5,000 was issued to the insured, in which his wife was named as beneficiary. This policy was dated February 27, 1891, and contained the following stipulations, among others: "That the statements and declarations made by and on behalf of said member in his application to become a benefit member of said association, which are hereby referred to as the basis of this contract, and are a part hereof, and on the faith of which this policy is issued, are warranted to be in all respects true, and that no fact has been omitted relating to the warranties." "This policy is incontestable after three years from its date, provided three full yearly payments have been made upon it, except that error in the age of the insured is open to adjustment, and, if understated, the insured will be entitled only to the amount of insurance which the sum paid would have purchased at his correct age, if insurable in this association." "Death of the insured in consequence of the use of intoxicating liquors or narcotics, or by his own hand or act, whether sane or insane, whether the act be voluntary or involuntary, within three years from the date hereof, is a risk not contemplated or covered by this contract, and...