Metro. Life Ins. Co v. Hayslett

• Decision Date: 09 June 1910
• Citation: 111 Va. 107,68 S.E. 256
• Parties: METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. HAYSLETT.
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

68 S.E. 256

111 Va. 107

METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

v.HAYSLETT.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

June 9, 1910.)

1. Evidence (§ 155^*)—Admissibility—Introduction by Adverse Party.

The object of Code 1904, § 3249, authorizing the court to order the filing of a state ment of the particular ground of defense, etc., is to give the adverse party more definite information of its character than is disclosed by the plea, and to confine the evidence to the particular defense disclosed, and, where certain evidence of plaintiff bearing on the issue of non-assumpsit was introduced without objection, defendant must be allowed to introduce evidence on the same issue though not within the special pleas relied on by defendant when filing its grounds of defense.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Evidence, Cent. Dig. §§ 445-458; Dec. Dig. § 155.*]

2. Insurance (§ 655*)—Actions—Evidence.

Where, in an action on a life policy, insurer alleged that insured fraudulently stated in the application that he was in sound health, insurer should be allowed to a reasonable extent to accumulate proof on the point that insured was at the time in ill health and his physician should be permitted to answer the question whether a man who has chronic Bright's disease exhibiting symptoms indicated a hypothetical question asked and answered, is in good health.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 1677-1685; Dec. Dig. § 655.*]

3. Insurance (§ 668*)—RepresentationsMateriality—Question for Court and Jury.

Whether a representation has been made by an applicant for life insurance and the terms thereof are for the jury, but, where proved, the materiality of the representation is for the court [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 1732-1770; Dec. Dig. § 668.*]

Error to Circuit Court, Norfolk County.

Action by Mary E. Hayslett against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. There was a judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error. Reversed and remanded.

Jeffries, Wolcott Wolcott & Lankford, for plaintiff in error.

R. Randolph Hicks, for defendant in error.

KEITH, P. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on the 26th of February, 1907, received from Joseph Hayslett a written application for insurance, dated on the 20th of that month, and issued its policy to him on the 9th day of the ensuing March for the sum of $500. On the 27th of February, 1908, Hayslett died, and a suit was brought upon the policy, a verdict rendered, and a judgment recovered which is before us upon a writ of error.

The policy contained the following provisions: "It is further declared and agreed that the foregoing statements and answers, and also the statements and answers on the next page hereof, in answer to the medical examiner, are correct and wholly true, that they shall form the basis of the contract of insurance, if one be issued, and that if they are not thus correct and wholly true, the policy shall be null and void."

"It is further agreed that the company shall incur no liability under this application until it has been received, approved and the policy issued and delivered and the premium has actually been paid to and accepted by the company during the lifetime of the life proposed and while he is in good health.

"To induce the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to issue policy, and as consideration therefor, I agree on behalf of myself and of any other person who shall have, or claim interest in any policy issued under this application, as follows:

"Wherever nothing is written in the following paragraphs, it is agreed that the declaration is true without exception.

"I have never had any of the following complaints or diseases: * * * Disease of the kidneys.

"I am now in sound health. I am not blind, deaf, or dumb, nor have I any physical or mental defect or infirmity of any kind." Then follows "the name of the physician who last attended me, the date of the attendance, and the name of the complaint for which he attended me: Doctor Wilson, September, malaria."

"I have not been under the care of any physician within two years other than as stated in previous paragraph, except [no exceptions].

"I have never met with any serious personal injury, not ever been seriously ill, except as stated herein, and for the complaints named, and no other, when I was attended by the following named physicians and no other: [No exceptions and no physician's name.]"

To the declaration filed upon this policy the defendant pleaded nonassumpsit and two special pleas, in the first of which the defendant says, leaving out the formal parts, that the applicant did 'fraudulently and knowingly make a false statement in his application, in this, to wit, that he never had any disease of the kidneys, which statement was false, in that the applicant prior thereto had been and was at that time afflicted with a disease of the kidneys and had been treated therefor; that the statement was material and caused the company to issue the policy sued upon, and but for said answer the policy would not have been issued; and that the defendant had no knowledge of the falsity of said statement. The substance of the second plea is that the applicant fraudulently and knowingly made a false statement in his application by stating that he was then (at the time of signing the application) in sound health, and that he had no physical or mental defect or infirmity of any kind.

The plaintiff having moved that the defendant be required to file its grounds of defense, the defendant stated that they were embraced in the two pleas above given.

During the progress of the trial, the defendant sought to rely upon a third ground of defense based upon the express...