Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Kaiser.

• Decision Date: 09 August 1945
• Docket Number: 148/3.
• Citation: 43 A.2d 677
• Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. KAISER.
• Court: New Jersey Court of Chancery

43 A.2d 677

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

v.KAISER.

148/3.

Court of Chancery of New Jersey.

Aug. 9, 1945.

Suit by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company against Anne Kaiser to rescind on the ground of misrepresentation a policy of insurance issued on the life of Sam Kaiser.

Decree for complainant.

Syllabus by the Court.

Insurer sues to rescind on the ground of misrepresentation a policy of life insurance. Defendant moves to dismiss because the proofs show intentional fraud which is a defense at law.

1. While equity will not ordinarily assume jurisdiction in fraud cases, where the remedy at law is certain, adequate and complete, its right to do so is unquestioned.

Equity will not act unless the administration of justice will thereby be facilitated. The exercise of the jurisdiction rests in the sound discretion of the court and depends upon the special circumstances of the individual case.

2. Chancery may cancel a policy which is based on actual fraud as well as where it is founded on an innocent misrepresentation.

3. Since the case has been tried, the court should proceed to judgment for the company on the merits.

McCarter, English & Egner and Conover English, all of Newark, for complainant.

Maurice Schapira, of Newark, for defendant.

BIGELOW, Vice Chancellor.

The bill is filed to rescind on the ground of misrepresentation a policy of insurance issued on the life of Sam Kaiser. In his application dated November 25, 1941, he gave himself a clean bill of health. Nine months later, he died. Complainant has proved that in June and July of 1938, one Sam Kaiser was examined by Dr. Maurice Asher and found to have diabetes. The patient was put on a diet and insulin was prescribed. In 1940 and 1941, Kaiser consulted and was treated by Dr. Manfred Kraemer, about once a month, in all 15 to 18 times. The doctor confirmed the previous diagnosis of diabetes and also found a duodenal ulcer. He told Kaiser that he would have to stay permanently under medical care.

The policy was obtained by misrepresentation if, in fact, the Kaiser who was treated by Dr. Asher and Dr. Kraemer was the same one who procured the insurance. Kaiser, the patient, gave his name, age, residence and occupation, which were the same as those of Kaiser, the insured. This is enough to show that the man who was suffering from diabetes was the one who applied for insurance.

The defendant also argues that the bill should be dismissed because the proofs show intentional fraud which is a defense at law to the action on the policy. While equity will not ordinarily assume jurisdiction in fraud cases where the remedy at law is certain, adequate and complete, its right to do so is unquestioned. Equity will not act unless the administration of justice will thereby be facilitated. The exercise of the jurisdiction rests in the sound discretion of the court and depends upon the special circumstances of the individual case. Pridmore v. Steneck, 120 N.J.Eq. 567, 186 A. 513; Id., 122 N.J.Eq. 35, 191 A. 861; Lewis v. Morgan, 132 N.J.Eq. 343, 28 A.2d 215. Bills to cancel insurance policies for fraud have been...