Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 05 April 1911 |
| Citation | 80 A. 1085,115 Md. 408 |
| Parties | MUTUAL LIFE INS. CO. v. ROBINSON. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court for St. Mary's County; John P Briscoe, B. Harris Camalier, and Fillmore Beall, Judges.
Action by Nellie B. Robinson against the Mutual Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Here follows plaintiff's second prayer: "If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant executed the policy of insurance offered in evidence and delivered the same to Henry T. Robinson in his lifetime, and that the said Henry T Robinson paid the defendant all the premiums payable thereon up to the time of his death and complied with all the undertakings stipulated to be performed on his part in said policy, and that on the 25th day of September, 1909, he died and that Nellie B. Robinson, his wife, the beneficiary named in said policy of insurance, exhibited and delivered to the defendant due proof of the death of the said Henry T Robinson as required by the terms of the said policy, on or about the 10th day of October, 1909, and before the commencement of this suit, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover in this action, unless the jury shall find from the evidence that Henry T. Robinson in his application for insurance made some misrepresentation or untrue statement, and that said misrepresentation or untrue statement (if the jury shall find any) was material to the risk." (Granted.)
Here follows plaintiff's third prayer: "The jury is hereby instructed that the burden of proving that Henry T. Robinson in his application for insurance offered in evidence in this case made a misrepresentation or untrue statement rests upon the defendant, and, if the jury is convinced that the said Henry T. Robinson did make a misrepresentation or untrue statement in said application, the burden of proving that the said misrepresentation or untrue statement is material to the risk rests also upon the defendant." (Conceded.)
Here follows the plaintiff's sixth prayer: "If the jury find for the plaintiff, then the plaintiff is entitled to recover the sum of one thousand dollars ($1,000), the amount of the policy, and they may also allow, if in their discretion they may see fit to do so, legal interest on said sum of $1,000 from such time the jury may find the defendant received and accepted satisfactory proof at its head office of the death of Henry T. Robinson down to this date." (Conceded.)
Here follows defendant's first prayer: "The defendant prays the court to instruct the jury that if they shall find from the evidence in this case that Henry T. Robinson, the insured, made false representations in his written application for insurance, and further find that such false representations were material to the risk assumed by the defendant in issuing the policy of insurance which is the cause of action in this case, then their verdict must be for the defendant, notwithstanding they believe the insured made such representations unintentionally or through mistake and in good faith." (Rejected.)
Here follows defendant's second prayer: "The defendant prays the court to instruct the jury that if they shall find from the evidence in this case that Henry T. Robinson, the insured, was afflicted with Bright's disease at the time of his application, and that he affirmatively answered the question in said application, 'Are you now in good health?' then such answer constituted a false statement upon a matter material to the risk assumed by the defendant in issuing the policy of insurance which is the cause of action in this case, and their verdict must be for the defendant, notwithstanding they believe the insured was ignorant of the fact that he was so afflicted." (Rejected.)
Here follows defendant's third prayer: "The defendant prays the court to instruct the jury that if they shall find from the evidence in this case that Henry T. Robinson, the insured, was afflicted with Bright's disease in January, 1908, that a urinalysis of his urine made at intervals of two or three weeks thereafter by the physician who made the first urinalysis in January, 1908, up to the summer of that year, showed that he was afflicted with that disease throughout all this period; that a medical examination of the insured by another physician in February, 1909, disclosed the fact that he than had Bright's disease, diagnosed by the physician who made this last examination as a case of long standing, and that the said insured died of Bright's disease in September, 1909, then they must find that the affirmative answer of the said insured in his application for insurance August 13, 1908, to the question in said application, 'Are you now in good health?' must have been false upon a matter material to the risk assumed by the defendant in issuing the policy of insurance which is the cause of action in this case, and their verdict must be for the defendant." (Rejected.)
Here follows defendant's fourth prayer: "The defendant prays the court to instruct the jury that there is no evidence in this case legally sufficient to entitle the plaintiff to recover under the pleadings in the case, and that, therefore, their verdict must be for the defendant." (Rejected.)
Argued before BOYD, C.J., and PEARCE, BURKE, PATTISON, and URNER, JJ.
Carlyle Barton and Randolph Barton, for appellant.
J. Frank Parran and John B. Gray, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for St. Mary's county in favor of the appellee upon a policy of life insurance issued by the appellant. The policy was issued on the 13th day of August, 1908, and it insured for $1,000 the life of Henry T. Robinson for the benefit of his wife, Nellie B. Robinson, the appellee. Henry T. Robinson, the insured, died of Bright's disease on the 25th of September, 1909. The appellant refused to pay, and the appellee brought suit upon the policy. The declaration is in assumpsit. The appellant filed the general issue plea and two special pleas. The first special plea alleged that the insured induced the defendant to issue the policy by falsely and fraudulently representing at the time of his application therefor that he was in good health, when in truth and in fact he was not then, nor when the policy was issued, in good health, but was at those times, as well as for some time prior thereto, afflicted with Bright's disease, a disease which tends to shorten human life. The second special plea alleged that the said insured made other false and fraudulent representations in the written application made by him as an inducement to issue the policy, which representations were of matters material to the risk assumed by the defendant in issuing the policy. The premiums appear to have been paid as they fell due during the lifetime of the deceased, and after his death proper proof of death was furnished to the appellant. The sole defense to the suit was that the insured had induced the appellant to issue the policy by false and fraudulent representations material to the risk, and these false and fraudulent representations, relied upon to avoid the policy, are those set out in the first special plea.
At the trial of the case, the plaintiff offered in evidence the policy of the insurance, proof of death, and the original application for insurance. The application was made to the appellant company and signed by the insured on August 12, 1908, and it is therein stated that "all the following statements and answers and all those that I make to the company's medical examiner in continuation are true and offered to the company as an inducement to issue the proposed policy, which I hereby agree to accept, and which shall not take effect unless and until the first premium shall have been paid during my continuance in good health, and unless also the policy shall have been issued during my continuance in good health, except in case a binding receipt shall have been issued as hereinafter provided." In answer to a question put to him by the medical examiner, the insured stated that he was in good health. The following condition appears in the policy of insurance: "All statements made by the insured shall, in the absence of fraud, be deemed representations and not warranties, and no such statement of the insured shall avoid or be used in defense to a claim under this policy unless contained in the written application herefor, a copy of which is endorsed hereon or attached hereto."
In order to dispose of the legal questions presented by the appeal, it will be necessary to give an outline of the substantial facts appearing in the record. The plaintiff testified that she was the widow of Henry T. Robinson, the insured, and the beneficiary mentioned in the policy; that she had been married to her husband for about 15 years at the time of his death; that he died on September 25, 1909; and that she had never been paid as such beneficiary, although proof of death had been duly forwarded to the defendant and demand for payment made. She testified that her husband had died of Bright's disease; that he had been ill four or five months immediately preceding the date of his death; that the immediate cause of death was heart disease; and that she did not know her husband had Bright's disease until she was told by the doctor who so certified in the proof of death.
John S Jones testified that he was the solicitor or agent of the defendant on August 13, 1908; that he knew Henry T. Robinson, and solicited him to have his life insured, and prepared for him an application for insurance. He identified the application offered in evidence as the one prepared by him and forwarded to the company, except that certain writing thereon whereby it appeared that some person or officer of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial