Paratore v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Court: Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
• Writing for the Court: Before WILKINS; RONAN
• Citation: Paratore v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 141 N.E.2d 511, 335 Mass. 632 (Mass. 1957)
• Decision Date: 02 April 1957
• Parties: Charles M. PARATORE v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.

Page 511

141 N.E.2d 511

335 Mass. 632

Charles M. PARATORE v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

Argued Dec. 4, 1956.

Decided April 2, 1957.

Frank G. Lichtenstein and Louis Barsky, Boston, for plaintiff.

Eugene Lyne, Boston, for defendant.

Before WILKINS, C. J., and RONAN, SPALDING, and WILLIAMS, JJ.

RONAN, Justice.

This is an action of contract brought by the beneficiary in a policy issued by the defendant on June 27, 1951, upon the life of Ethel F. Paratore, the plaintiff's wife. After a verdict for the plaintiff, the case is here upon exceptions to the exclusion of evidence, to the failure to give certain requests for instructions, and to the charge.

The insured was about fifty years of age when the policy was issued. She had been an employee of a department store for several years whose records for the year 1951 showed she was absent on various occasions from February to December 24 when she quit her employment. These records show that she was ill on some of these occasions, and there was evidence that she stated that she was suffering from hypertension. She married the plaintiff on March 11, 1951. She died March 16, 1952.

After treatment at a well known medical clinic on November 1, 1951, she entered the New England Baptist Hospital on November 3, 1951, from which she was discharged on November 8, 1951. The records of this hospital showed that she had hypertension grade 3, that she had a hypertension of known duration of five years, and that it was thought advisable to continue her on a diet and mild sedation and if she showed no improvement within a period of from four to six months a splanchnicectomy--an operation which consisted of a severance of the splanchnic nerves--should be reconsidered.

The policy under the heading 'Policy When Void' contained the following clause: 'If on the date of issue of this policy the Insured was not in sound health, or if prior to said date, the Insured * * * had * * * any disease of the heart * * * or if, within two years prior to said date, the Insured was attended or treated by any physician or other practitioner, or attended any hospital or institution of any kind engaged in the cure or care of bodily or mental disease, for any serious disease, complaint or surgical operation, this policy shall be voidable by the Company either before or after any claim, unless reference to each such * * * attendance, treatment or prior disease is endorsed hereon by the Company or unless this policy is incontestable at the date of death of the Insured. * * * If this policy does not take effect, or is voided by the Company, the Company shall refund the premiums paid.' There were no indorsements on the policy.

A somewhat similar clause was construed in Lopardi v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 289 Mass. 492, 496, 194 N.E. 706, as expressing conditions precedent compliance with which must be had before any contractual duty upon the part of the company arises under the policy other than to repay the amount of the paid in premium. It was said, 289 Mass. at pages 496-497, 194 N.E. at page 708, 'That an insured is in sound health at the date of the policy is clearly a proper subject of a condition precedent. * * * And the matters dealt within the clause entitled 'Policy When Void,' though of secondary rather than of primary importance, cannot be pronounced so immaterial in their bearing on the health of the insured at the date of the policy and, consequently on the extent of the risk assumed...