Outlaw v. Calhoun Life Ins. Co., 17644
| Decision Date | 13 April 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 17644,17644 |
| Citation | 236 S.C. 272,113 S.E.2d 817 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Annie OUTLAW, Respondent, v. CALHOUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant. |
John Gregg McMaster, Columbia, for appellant.
Donald H. Holland, Murchison, West & Marshall, Camden, for respondent.
This is an action to recover damages for alleged fraud and deceit in inducing the respondent, Annie Outlaw, to execute to Calhoun Life Insurance Company, the appellant herein, a final release and discharge from all obligation and liability under an insurance policy upon the life of Stephen L. Edenfield.
It appears from the complaint that the appellant issued a life insurance policy upon the life of Stephen L. Edenfield, and the policy provided, inter alia, that in the event of the death of the insured from natural causes that it would pay to the beneficiary, the respondent herein, the sum of $409 and in the event the insured died by accidental means, it would pay the sum of $818. It is alleged that the policy was in full force and effect at the time of the accidental death of the insured, and that the beneficiary became entitled to receive, under and pursuant to the provisions of said policy, the sum of $818. It is then alleged that the appellant did 'by their overreaching and deceitful act, knowingly, willfully and fraudulently, procure from the plaintiff herein, a final release and discharge from all obligation and liability resulting from the accidental death of said Stephen L. Edenfield', and, 'obtained and procured said final release and discharge from the plaintiff herein by giving her the impression and thought that by signing said final release and discharge, she was giving a receipt for the full amount due under said policy, for the accidental death of her insured son'. She further alleges 'after executing said release and discharge, saw for the first time the amount of the draft offered her for said release and discharge; that plaintiff then realized the said draft was insufficient to cover benefits to which she was entitled as a result of the accidental death of the insured.' The complaint then alleges that the respondent insisted that the agents of the appellant take back said draft and return to her said executed final release and discharge, which said agents failed and refused to do. She further alleges that as a result of the fraudulent and deceitful acts and conduct of the agents of the appellant, by fraudulently procuring said final release and discharge, she has suffered actual and punitive damages.
The appellant demurrer to the complaint upon the following ground:
'That the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that it appears upon the face of the complaint that the plaintiff was able to read and executed a release in this action without reading or informing herself of its contents and accepted the benefits of the release, and such release is valid and constitutes a bar to this action.'
The demurrer was heard by Honorable James Hugh McFaddin, Presiding Judge, and he overruled such on the ground that the complaint, liberally construed, stated a cause of action for obtaining a release by fraud and deceit. This appeal followed. The sole question for determination by this Court is stated in the following language: 'Is the complaint defective in that it appears upon its face that the plaintiff was able to read and executed a release in this action without reading or informing herself of its contents and accepted the benefits of the release, and such release is valid and constitutes a bar to this action?'
It is elementary that in passing upon a demurrer, the Court is limited to a consideration of the pleadings...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regions Bank v. Schmauch
...reasonable care to protect himself or herself against fraud by reading a contract before he signs it); Outlaw v. Calhoun Life Ins. Co., 236 S.C. 272, 276, 113 S.E.2d 817, 819 (1960) (stating one cannot complain of fraud in misrepresentation of contents of written instrument signed by her wh......
-
Gordon v. Fidelity & Cas. Co. of N. Y.
...regarded as embraced in such averment. Roper v. South Carolina Tax Commission, 231 S.C. 587, 99 S.E.2d 377, and Outlaw v. Calhoun Life Ins. Co., 236 S.C. 272, 113 S.E.2d 817. However, the filing of a demurrer by the appellant does not admit that it was guilty of fraud and deceit because thi......
-
Warr v. Carolina Power & Light Co.
...v. Cooper, 234 S.C. 477, 109 S.E.2d 5; Mishoe v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 234 S.C. 182, 107 S.E.2d 43; Outlaw v. Calhoun Life Ins. Co., S.C., 113 S.E.2d 817. It is essential that the facts and circumstances which constitute the fraud should be st out clearly. Bookhart et al. v......
-
Jones v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc.
...(7) his reliance on its truth; (8) his justifiable reliance; and (9) his consequent and proximate injuries. Outlaw v. Calhoun Life Ins. Co., 236 S.C. 272, 113 S.E.2d 817, 818 (1960). JWH argues that Jones could not have justifiably relied on the misrepresentation because he failed to read, ......