New York Life Ins. Co. v. Hollis

• Citation: 171 S.E. 288,177 Ga. 805
• Decision Date: 13 October 1933
• Docket Number: 9662.
• Parties: NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. HOLLIS et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia

171 S.E. 288

177 Ga. 805

NEW YORK LIFE INS. CO. v. HOLLIS et al.

No. 9662.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 13, 1933

Syllabus by the Court.

Evidence that insured obtained reinstatement of life policy by misrepresentation in application therefor concealing that insured received medical treatments required cancellation of reinstatement.

1. Under the evidence the jury were not authorized to find that the policy of life insurance in question had not lapsed for failure to pay a premium due at the time application for reinstatement of the policy was made by the insured.

2. Under the evidence a finding was demanded that the reinstatement of the policy which had lapsed for nonpayment of a premium should be set aside and canceled, because obtained by untrue answers to questions contained in the application, and because the misrepresentation was as to material facts.

Error from Superior Court, Sumter County; W. M. Harper, Judge.

Suit by the New York Life Insurance Company against Robert F. Hollis individually, and as administrator of the estate of Mrs. Eva C. Cooper and another. Judgment for defendants plaintiff's motion for a new trial was overruled, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed.

Bryan Middlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, and W. T. Lane & Son, of Americus, for plaintiff in error.

J. A. Hixon, of Americus, for defendants in error.

BECK Presiding Justice.

The New York Life Insurance Company brought its petition against Robert F. Hollis, individually and as administrator of the estate of Mrs. Eva C. Cooper, and Jere Hollis, to have canceled, by decree of the court, a reinstatement of a policy of life insurance which was issued to Mrs. Eva C. Cooper. Mrs. Cooper was alive at the time of the trial, but she died afterwards, and her administrator was made a party. The cancellation was sought upon the ground that the reinstatement had been obtained by false representations as to material facts, made by the insured in her application for the reinstatement, on June 1, 1927.

The verdict was in answers of the jury to certain questions submitted to them, and upon these answers the court entered a decree in favor of the defendants, denying cancellation of the policy. To this decree the plaintiff excepted pendente lite. The plaintiff filed also a motion for a new trial, and to the overruling of this motion it also excepted.

1. It is contended by the defendants that, while the insured, Mrs. Eva Cooper, made application as alleged for reinstatement of her policy as of a policy which had lapsed for nonpayment of a premium, as a matter of fact the policy had not lapsed or been forfeited, but that the premium due on April 21, 1927, was paid before the lapse of the period of grace allowed in the policy, that is, thirty days after the premium became due, and that the jury were authorized to find in favor of the defendants on the question whether or not the policy had lapsed. We cannot agree to this contention. We think the evidence demanded a finding that the premium had not been paid until after the period of grace, thirty days, had elapsed.

2. One of the questions propounded for answer by the jury in this case was as follows: "Q. At the time Mrs. Eva C. Cooper the defendant, on June the first, 1927, in writing, applied to New York Life Insurance Company for the reinstatement of the policy which is the subject-matter of this case, had she been treated by Dr. W. S. Prather?" The jury returned an affirmative answer. The second question was: "If you answer that she had been treated by Dr. Prather, approximately how many times has she been treated, and over what period?" The answer was: "About nine times, in 24 months." To another...