Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Solomito

• Decision Date: 16 May 1916
• Docket Number: No. 22936.,22936.
• Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. SOLOMITO.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

184 Ind. 722

112 N.E. 521

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

v.SOLOMITO.

No. 22936.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

May 16, 1916.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Owen County; James B. Wilson, Judge.

Suit by Vito Solomito against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. On transfer from the Appellate Court under Burns' Ann. St. 1914, § 1405 (Acts 1901, c. 259). Judgment reversed, with instructions to the trial court to restate its conclusions of law and render judgment in conformity with the opinion.

Stotsenburg & Weathers, of New Albany, for appellant. Thomas G. Spangler and Herbert A. Rundell, both of Spencer, and Wm. M. Louden, of Bloomington, for appellee.

COX, J.

Appellee sued to recover on a policy of industrial life insurance issued by appellant on the life of one Myk Kovacevie, in which appellee was the named beneficiary. Appellee is an Italian, and Kovacevie was an Austrian. They were not related. The amount of the policy was $275, one-half only of which sum was to be paid if death occurred within six months. The application for the insurance was made May 8, 1912, and the policy was issued on May 20, 1912. Kovacevie died August 27, 1912, of valvular heart disease and dropsy. In the written application for the policy it was stated that no physician had attended the insured for any complaint within two years prior to the date of the application, and that he had never been under treatment in any dispensary or hospital. The policy provided:

“That no obligation is assumed by the company prior to the date hereof, nor unless on said date the insured is alive and in sound health.”

It was further provided that:

The “policy is void if the insured before its date *** has been attended by a physician for any serious disease or complaint, or has had before said date any *** disease of the heart,” etc.

Appellant answered the complaint by general denial and five special answers, in which the absence of insurable interest and the violations of the conditions set out above were presented as defenses. The issues formed by general denials of the special paragraphs of answer were tried by the court. On request the facts were specially found, and on them the court stated conclusions of law favorable to appellee and rendered judgment accordingly. Appellant's exceptions to the conclusions of law present the only questions involved in the appeal.

The court found, among other things, that in the written application of Kovacevie to procure the insurance it was stated by him that no physician had attended him for any complaint within two years prior to the date of the application, and that the statement was made by the insured for the purpose of inducing appellant to issue the policy of insurance sued on; that among other considerations in the policy it was provided that no obligation was assumed by the insurer...