Mickle v. Dixie Sec. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1949 |
| Docket Number | 16297. |
| Parties | MICKLE v. DIXIE SECURITY LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Lee & Moise, Sumter, John K. deLoach, Camden, William M Wilon, Camden, for appellant.
Murchison & West, Camden, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover the sum of Five Hundred Dollars alleged to be due the plaintiff as beneficiary under a policy of insurance issued by the defendant, Dixie Security Life Insurance Company, upon the life of her husband, William M. Mickle.
The defendant, by its answer, set up the defense of fraud on the part of the insured, alleging that in the application for the insurance he had falsely and fraudulently answered certain questions with reference to the state of his health; and that by his false and fraudulent answers he had misled and deceived the company into issuing the policy on his life. It was further alleged by way of defense that the insurance policy contained the following provision: 'This policy shall take effect on the date of issue, provided the insured is then alive and in sound health, but not otherwise;' and that, upon information and belief, the insured was not in sound health on the date of issue, and therefore the insurance never became effective.
Upon the trial of the case, at the close of the testimony, the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which was refused. The motion was based upon the ground that the evidence sustained and established the defenses above set forth. The case was submitted to the jury, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff in the sum of Five Hundred Dollars.
The appellant prosecutes this appeal upon two grounds: (a) Were the answers to the questions in the application fraudulent so as to constitute warranties as expressed by the contract of insurance, or were they representations; and in either event did they void the policy? (b) Was respondent's husband in sound health on May 17, 1948, the date of the issuance of the policy?
The record discloses that respondent, the wife of the insured, resides at Camden, and is Night Supervisor at the Camden Hospital. She is a registered nurse, and was married to the insured on September 16, 1941. The life insurance policy in question was applied for by insured on May 3, 1948; it was issued on May 17, 1948, and delivered to respondent the next day, May 18 1948, by appellant's local agent, two or three hours after the death of the insured, who died of a heart attack superinduced by alcoholism.
Replying to the questions contained in the application of date May 3, 1948 which was two weeks prior to his death, the insured stated that he was in good health; had never had any illnesses injuries or operations; had never been refused insurance in this or any other company; had never had certain named diseases, _____ none of which are relevant here; nor had he ever suffered from any mental or physical infirmities.
It may reasonably be inferred from the testimony of all of the witnesses, including that of his wife, the respondent, that he had been a periodic inebriate for years, and had been treated for what is described as 'hangovers.'
Respondent testified that during the year prior to the issuance of the policy, the insured drank very little, but before that he had been a heavy drinker, and that at one time they had separated on account of his excessive drinking, but became reunited in June, 1947. She said that subsequent to the latter date, he drank to excess only twice: once during Christmas, 1947, and again shortly before his death. He was incapacitated from drink one or two days preceding his death _____ that is, on May 15 and May 16, _____ but was not confined to his bed until the 17th, on which day he unexpectedly died. The respondent testified that her husband had been drinking prior to and during all of this period, and that usually it took him about two weeks to recover from one of his drinking spells.
Mrs. Mickle stated that her husband and the soliciting agent, Mr. Anderson, had known each other for years, and were old friends; that they had worked together at Oak Ridge Atomic Bomb Plant (in Tennessee), and saw each other afterwards in Camden; that Mr. Anderson and the insured Drank together sometimes, and that he knew that the insured had been treated by a doctor for hangovers.
The insured was in the Camden Hospital for two days in December, 1947; he had a pain in his abdomen, and his attending physician, Dr. Shaw, had him under observation to determine whether the pain was caused by appendicitis or whether it was due to his drinking. Dr. Shaw testified that after checking his blood count and general condition, he felt that there was some evidence of appendicitis, and that perhaps an operation was advisable. However, no operation was performed because the insured said he was feeling better, and would not agree to an operation. There is no evidence that the abdominal pain ever recurred, and Dr. Shaw never saw him again.
Dr. Brunson, a witness for appellant, had known the insured for years, but had not seen him recently before his death. The respondent told Dr. Brunson three days before the death of her husband of his alcoholic condition, and the doctor prescribed sedative capsules. Dr. Brunson signed the physician's Statement, give the cause of death as 'Heart failure _____ type not determined,' and as a contributary or secondary cause, 'Died suddenly during sleep _____ alcoholism.' The doctor testified, And he further stated that doctors now classify alcoholism as a disease. However, Dr. Brunson on cross...
To continue reading
Request your trial