Mut. Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Marsh
Decision Date | 16 June 1939 |
Docket Number | No. 27443.,27443. |
Citation | 4 S.E.2d 84 |
Parties | MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASS'N. v. MARSH. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied July 26, 1939.
Syllabus by the Court.
1. "Where it is shown that a material statement made in such application [for insurance] was false, that its falsity was known to the insured at the time it was made, that it was made with a view to procuring the insurance, that the company had no notice of its falsity, and that the company acted upon it to its injury, the law will conclusively presume an intent to deceive, and a case of actual fraud will be made out, although the insured may not have really intended to prejudice the rights of the company." Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 116 Ga. 799 (2), 43 S.E. 79.
2. In other words, the variation from the truth must be such as to change the nature, extent, or character of the risk. Firemen's Insurance Company v. Parmer, 51 Ga.App. 916, 917, 181 S.E. 880; Supreme Conclave v. Wood, 120 Ga. 328, 47 S.E. 940.
3. Code, § 56-908.
4. The evidence at least demanded a finding that the answers of the applicant for insurance, in reply to questions in the written application attached to the policy, were such a variation from the truth as to change the nature, extent, and character of the risk as contemplated in the policy issued by the company.
Error from City Court of Richmond County; Gordon W. Chambers, Judge.
Action by F. L. Marsh against the Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association on a life, accident and health policy for loss of a leg. To review a judgment for the plaintiff, the defendant brings error.
Reversed.
Bussey & Fulcher, of Augusta, for plaintiff in error.
Curry & Curry and Paul T. Chance, all of Augusta, for defendant in error.
On October 30, 1937, the plaintiff made an application to the insurance company for a life, accident, and health policy which was issued to him, the application being made a part of the policy. Thereafter, the insured accidentally lost a leg. He made a demand for payment under the policy which was refused, and he brought suit thereon. The defendant contended that the policy was void because of fraud and because of material misrepresentations in the application in that the plaintiff failed to disclose that he had other life, health, and accident insurance, or application therefor pending; failed to disclose that other life or disability insurance had been declined, postponed, rated up, or canceled; failed to disclose all claims demanded or received on account of injuries or illnesses; failed to disclose that he had had bronchitis, malaria, a spot on his lung, an infected sinus, and la grippe, and failed to disclose an operation for tonsils and adenoids.
The trial resulted in a verdict for the insured for the amount sued for ($1,091) and "all statutory charges and attorneys fees in amount of $300." The defendant's motion for new trial was overruled and it excepted. The only question presented is whether the evidence authorized the verdict, the defendant confining its motion to the general grounds and the special grounds which are merely elaborations of the general grounds.
The policy in question was issued to the plaintiff on November 8, 1937. Attached to and made a part of the policy was an application dated October 30, 1937, which contained, among other things, the following pertinent parts: 8. "None." "No." 9. "No." "No." "If so, give full particulars." 10. 12. "None of Above." "Has any of your family ever had tuberculosis?" "No." 13. "No." 14. "Have you ever been operated on by a physician or surgeon?" "No." 18. "Do you hereby apply to the Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association for a policy to be issued solely and entirely in reliance upon the written answers to the foregoing questions, and do you agree that the Association is not bound by any statement made by or to any agent unless written herein; and do you agree to notify the Association promptly of any changein your occupation, or if you take additional insurance, and do you hereby authorize any physician or other person who has attended or may attend you to disclose any information thus acquired?" "Yes."
On the trial of the case the plaintiff insured testified, relative to the first part of question 8, that he did not have any insurance at the time he made his answer and that his answer was true. Relative to the second part of question 8 as to any pending applications for other insurance, he testified, "That question was not asked or answered by me." However, he further testified, As to question 9, relative to cancellation of any life or disability insurance, he testified on cross-examination: With reference to question 10, the insured testified and the documentary evidence showed that the insured, over a period of 13 years, to-wit from January 12, 1920, to December 21, 1932, had sustained approximately 7 accidents and was sick approximately 8 times from which he had received approximately $2,200 in indemnities. As to question 12, the undisputed evidence showed, and the insured admitted, that he had had "malaria fever and la grippe, " being disabled for 28 days; that he had had his tonsils and adenoids removed; that he had had "bronchitis and infected sinus, " being disabled for 32 days, and on another occasion had had the same trouble, being disabled 65 days. Relative to question 14, the insured said he had received certain benefits "which covered an operation for tonsil and adenoids removed." It further appears from the evidence that the insured made a proof claim on March 12, 1938, for the loss of his leg on March 3, 1938, which claim was signed by him and sworn to before a notary and contained the following questions and answers: "Have you any other accident insurance?" "No." (It being unquestioned by the evidence that he did.) 19. "Have you ever received any injury prior to the one herein mentioned?" "No." "If so state when and what it was?" "No." (It being unquestioned by the evidence that he had.)
It has been repeatedly held by this court and the Supreme Court that as a general rule questions as to the truth and materiality of representations in policies of insurance are questions of fact for the jury. However, where all the testimony produced on the trial, relative to questions of fact, "excluded every reasonable inference but one, the issue becomes an issue of law, for determination by the court." Life Ins. Co. of Virginia v. Pate, 23 Ga.App. 232(3), 97 S.E. 874; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hollis, 177...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Perry
...to it, and especially so when the application is attached to and becomes a part of the contract. Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Marsh, 60 Ga.App. 431, 437, 4 S.E.2d 84. Consequently, unless fraud against him appears the answers on the application are Perry's answers, and he is charge......
-
Smith v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company
...insurance is material as a matter of law. These cases are Sovereign Camp of W.O.W. v. Reid, supra, and Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. Marsh, 60 Ga.App. 431, 4 S.E.2d 84. In the first of these cases the Georgia Court of Appeals "A reply in the negative, in a signed application for......
-
Nat'l Life & v. Preston
...demanded such a finding. See, also, Northwestern Life Ins. Co. v. Montgomery, 116 Ga. 799, 43 S.E. 79; Mutual Benefit, etc. Association v. Marsh, 60 Ga.App. 431, 4 S.E.2d 84; National Life etc, Ins. Co. v. Gordon, 183 Ga. 577, 188 S.E. 894. Since the answer in the application in the instant......
-
Mutual Benefit Health & Acc. Ass'n v. Marsh
...4 S.E.2d 84 60 Ga.App. 431 MUTUAL BENEFIT HEALTH & ACCIDENT ASS'N v. MARSH. No. 27443.Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.June 16, 1939 ... ...