Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hall

Decision Date19 November 1928
Docket Number27427
Citation118 So. 826,152 Miss. 413
CourtMississippi Supreme Court
PartiesMETROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO. v. HALL. [*]

Division B

1 FRAUD. Person alleging fraud must prove it by clear and convincing evidence, presumption being that all persons act honestly. Prima-facie presumption is that all persons act honestly, and person alleging fraud must prove it by clear and convincing evidence both in courts of law and in courts of equity.

2 INSURANCE. Evidence as to insurer's fraud in securing contract for insurance held insufficient for submission to jury (Hemingway's Code 1927, section 5938).

In action to recover insurance premiums paid on a life insurance policy after insurer had notified insured that face value of policy would be reduced to an amount that premium would have purchased at the correct age of insured, in accordance with policy provisions and Hemingway's 1927 Code, section 5938 (Code 1906, section' 2676), evidence as to insurer's fraud in securing contract held insufficient for submission to jury.

HON. B F. CARTER, Special Judg.

APPEAL from circuit court of Jones county, Second district, HON. B. F. CARTER, Special Judge.

Action by Annie Hall against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and rendered.

Judgment reversed.

Wells, Stevens & Jones, for appellant.

There is absolutely no testimony whatsoever of any statement, made by the agent when the policy was delivered, tending to mislead the insured by a statement that he had recorded her answer as to age correctly, or that the provisions of the policy were exactly as applied for so as to throw the insured off her guard and mislead her into not reading the policy delivered to her, in accordance with the direction in bold type on the policy itself. Under these circumstances the insured, Mrs. Hall, is bound by all the provisions of the policy. She cannot lay the policy aside and contend that she does not know the provisions in the policy contrary to her interest. Home Mutual Fire Insurance Co. v. Pittman, 111 Miss. 420, 71 So. 739; National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Provine, 148 Miss. 659, 114 So. 730; Germania Life Ins. Co. v. Bouldin, 100 Miss. 660, 56 So. 609; Coplin v. W. O. W., 105 Miss. 115, 62 So. 7.

There is no evidence in this record, with every just inference to be drawn therefrom, that either Mrs. Hall fraudently endeavored to secure insurance at a cheaper rate than she was entitled to at her age, or was the agent, Valentine, endeavoring to trap or defraud? Fraud must not only be alleged, but must be proven by clear and convincing testimony. Carter v. Eastman Gardner, 95 Miss. 651; 27 C. J. 44; Willoughby v. Pope, 102 Miss. 28, 58 So. 706; Arndt v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co., 97 S.E. 631; Rice v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 98 S.E. 283; Home Insurance Co. of New York v. Horrell, 227 S.W. 931; Peterson v. Commonwealth Casualty Co., 249 S.W. 148; Snyder v. Wolvertine Mut. Motor Ins. Co., 204 N.W. 706; Bostwick v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York, 67 L. R. A. 705; Simon v. Goodyear, etc., 44 C. C. A. 612, 105 F. 573, 52 L. R. A. 745.

Collins & Collins, for appellee.

Counsel argues that there is no fraud on the part of the agent of the insurance company with reference to the mis-statement of the age of the insured. We submit that the court has found that the plaintiff's version of the transaction is true. We concede that Mrs. Hall would be bound by the provisions of the policy as written, but she wouldn't be bound to make an examination of the policy with reference to a matter that she had told the truth about and the company had deliberately mis-stated in the policy. In other words, the company could not take advantage of its own wrong. It could not say that "I know it is true that I have defrauded you and made a mis-statement of your age, knowing what your age was, and knowing that you told me the truth about it, yet you cannot take advantage of my fraud, because you did not read the policy." See 26 C. J. 1147, 14 R. C. L. 1174; 32 C. J. 1267; McDonald v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 68 N.H. 4; 13 C. J. 615.

Wells, Stevens & Jones, in reply for appellant.

The policy states on its face that it contains the entire agreement and that its terms cannot be changed or its conditions varied except by written agreement, and that agents are not authorized and have no power to alter or to waive any provisions of the contract. These conditions written in bold type as a part of the policy contract were placed before the eyes of Mrs. Hall when her policy was delivered. There is no contention that she is mentally incompetent. On the contrary she is a woman of advancing years and splendid intelligence. She knows what she wants even to the point of suing for it. She knew at the time what her age was. The company did not. How can she, therefore, convince the executive officers of a fraud about which they knew nothing. But, says counsel, the local agent was in fact the company. Our answer to this is the very learned opinion of this court in New York Life Ins. Co. v. Odom, 100 Miss. 219, 56 So. 379, a case which reviews at length the authority of a local agent of a life insurance company, and the distinction between a soliciting agent of a life company and the general agent of a company having authority to issue policies as well as collect premiums. See, also, Crook v. New York Life Ins. Co., 112 Md. 268, 75 A. 388; 3 Cooley's Briefs on the Law of Insurance, 2486; Iowa Life Ins. Co. v. Lewis, 187 U.S. 335, 23 S.Ct. 126, 47 L.Ed. 204; Phoenix Mutual Ins. Co. v. Doster, 106 U.S. 33, 1 S.Ct. 18, 27 L.Ed. 65.

Counsel say that the company is attempting to reform the policy. The defendant has not asked for a reformation. This is not a suit by the company to reform or to change one word of the policy contract. The company was willing to stand on the contract and offered to stand on the contract and perform the contract as written. The Mississippi statute with reference to misstatement of age is part of the contract. It is binding on both parties. The result is that the plaintiff got what she bargained for in the application, what the policy contract provided for, and what the statutes of Mississippi provide for, and therefore why has she any right to complain? She has had full protection. She received all she paid for and the company is guilty of no deceit whatever. This suit in its last analysis gets down to an allegation that the company itself has fraudently mis-stated the plaintiff's age. To state the proposition carries a sufficient answer.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

Appellee brought this action against appellant in the county court of Jones county, to recover the insurance premiums paid by her to appellant on a life insurance policy issued to her by appellant, upon the ground that appellee was induced to apply for and accept the policy through false and fraudulent representations of appellant. There was a trial, and a judgment for appellee in the county court. From that judgment appellant appealed to the circuit court of Jones county, where there was a judgment for appellee, from which judgment appellant prosecutes this appeal.

Appellee's position is that the contract of insurance was procured through the fraud of appellant, and was therefore void, which, under the law, entitled her to recover back from appellant the weekly premiums she had paid for the insurance; while appellant contends that the evidence neither established, nor tended to establish, that the contract of insurance was procured by fraud on its part, and therefore it was entitled to a judgment.

The policy provided that, on the death of appellee, the beneficiary therein named should receive the sum of two hundred dollars and that the policy would be matured by the payment of weekly premiums of fifty cents per week, for a period of five years; and recited that appellee's age, at her next birthday, would sixty-two years. The application for the policy, which purported to have been signed by appellee, also stated that her age, at her next birthday, would be sixty-two years.

After paying the weekly premiums for more than four years appellant discovered that, at the time of the application for and the issuance of the policy, appellee would have been seventy years of age, at her next birthday, instead of sixty-two, as stated in the application and policy. Thereupon, appellant notified appellee that, on account of the error as to her age when the policy was applied for and issued, in case of her death the beneficiary in the policy...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Lindeman's Estate v. Herbert
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • February 19, 1940
    ......665, 75 So. 451;. Alcorn v. Alcorn, 194 F. 275; Security Mutual. Life Ins. Co. v. Brunson, 176 Miss. 893, 170 So. 824;. Jones v. Jones, 162 ... ratification of the gift, see:. . . Metropolitan. Life Ins. Co. v. Perrin, 183 So. 919; Clayton v. Clark, 74 Miss. 499, ... v. Pope, 58 So. 705, 101 Miss. 808; Metropolitan Life. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 118 So. 826, 152 Miss. 413; 7 Miss. Digest, Title "Fraud", Key No. 58; ......
  • McLean v. Love
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • November 5, 1934
    ......Land Company, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.). 156, 164 Cal. 464, 129 P. 582; Hall v. Henderson, 61. L.R.A. 621; McGregor v. Fitzpatrick, 25 L.R.A. (N.S.) ...Connor, 12 A. 713; Willoughby v. Pope, 101 Miss. 808, 58 So. 705; Life Ins. Co. v. Hall, 152 Miss. 413; McCain v. Cawthorn, 153. Miss. 237; ......
  • McArthur v. Fillingame
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • March 6, 1939
    ......O. & N.E. R. R. Co. v. Lott,. 71 So. 1, 118 Miss. 50; Pritchard v. Hall, 167 So. 629, 175. Miss. 588. . . Person. alleging fraud t prove it by clear and convincing. evidence. . . Metropolitan. Ins. Co. v. Hall, 118 So. 826, 152 Miss. 413;. Columbian Mutual Life ......
  • Hunt v. Sherrill
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • October 25, 1943
    ...... & M. V. R. Co. v. Aultman, 179 Miss. 109, 173 So. 280;. Interstate Life & Accident Co. v. Cooley, 150 Miss. 502,. 117 So. 267. This instruction ... damage, without which it will not lie. Hall v. Thompson, 1. Smedes & M. 443; Harris v. Ransom, 24 Miss. 504;. Salter ...Eastman-Gardner Co., 95 Miss. 651, 48 So. 615; Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Hall, 152. Miss. 413, 118 So. 826; McCain v. Cochran, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT