Miller v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 214 Ala. 4,106 So. 335
• Decision Date: 05 November 1925
• Docket Number: 8 Div. 722
• Parties: MILLER v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alabama

106 So. 335

214 Ala. 4

MILLER v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

8 Div. 722

Supreme Court of Alabama

November 5, 1925

Appeal from Circuit Court, Madison County; James E. Horton, Judge.

Action on a policy of life insurance by Alvin Newt Miller against the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

R.C Brickell and S.H. Richardson, both of Huntsville, for appellant.

Eyster & Eyster, of Albany, and Douglass Taylor, of Huntsville, for appellee.

SAYRE J.

Suit on a policy of insurance. Some of the rulings in favor of the special pleas were erroneous, but that, in our opinion, is not now a matter of consequence. All that can be said against special plea numbered 3 is that it fails to allege explicitly that the complaint with which plaintiff (appellant) had suffered prior to his application for the policy in suit, in which he represented that his health was good, whereas he was suffering from cancer, was intrinsically material to the risk; but no doubt we know that a person afflicted with cancer does not enjoy good health, and that such disease tends materially to shorten life--that is, to increase the risk of loss. There is no probability that the amendments necessary to the sufficiency of some of the pleas would have made any difference in the evidence introduced on either hand. The evidence shown by the record is without dispute and from that evidence but one rational conclusion can be drawn, viz.: That insured falsely answered material questions in order to have the insurance company issue the policy in suit. The questions so answered related to matters of insured's previous health and experience, and necessarily, insured knew his answers were false, and, being false, but one intent can be attributed to insured in making them, viz. the intent to deceive. The evidence showed without conflict or adverse inference that plaintiff, at the time of his application for a policy, was suffering from cancer and within 12 months he had undergone a surgical operation for its removal--as some other of the pleas undertook to allege his representations to the contrary notwithstanding--and that it was a contributing cause of his death a few months after the issuance of the policy. Men must be presumed to intend the natural consequences of their voluntary acts and declarations. In the case shown by the record, there is no satisfactory reason for a reversal. No cour...