Potter v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 8400
| Decision Date | 09 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 8400,8400 |
| Parties | Michael L. POTTER and Michele J. Potter, Appellants, v. The MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Respondents. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Doctor's Adjustment Bureau, Inc., brought an action against Michael and Michele Potter on a $790 bill owed by the Potters to Desert Springs Hospital. The Potters filed a third party complaint against Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company.
The district court granted Mutual Benefit's motion for summary judgment which had alleged that the policy of insurance was the product of the Potters having made false or fraudulent statements or representations regarding the physical condition and history of Michele Potter. Here, the Potters contend summary judgment should not have been granted. We agree.
On July 10, 1973, a representative of Mutual Benefit asked Mr. Potter questions in regard to an application for insurance. This conversation occurred, without Mrs. Potter, at Mr. Potter's place of business. Mr. Potter would answer the questions and the agent would fill in the answers on the application. Question number 3 stated: 'Have you (or your eligible dependents) consulted or been treated by a physician, surgeon or other practitioner in the last five years?' Mr. Potter answered 'yes' explaining that his wife had had a normal child delivery nine months earlier. This was noted on the back of the form along with her doctor's name. Question number 4 asked: 'Do you (or your eligible dependents) contemplate having, or have you (or your eligible dependents) had in the past five years, any surgery, treatment, observation or routine examination in any clinic, hospital, sanitarium or health resort?' Mr. Potter answered 'no.'
The policy was effective on August 1, 1973, and Mrs. Potter was hospitalized in December of 1973, with acute gastroenteritis. One year later Mutual Benefit refused to pay the hospital bill and cancelled coverage stating that misrepresentations had been made on questions 3 and 4 of the application, i.e., that Mrs. Potter had been treated in May of 1973 for a yeast infection of the vagina and for cystitis.
Whether the Potters had knowledge of this treatment is questionable. Mr. Potter stated, in his affidavit in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, that he had no knowledge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Selsnick v. Horton
...judgment was rendered is accepted as true. Short v. Hotel Riviera, Inc., 79 Nev. 94, 378 P.2d 979 (1963); Potter v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 93 Nev. 90, 560 P.2d 914 (1977); Bowyer v. Davidson, 94 Nev. 718, 584 P.2d 686 (1978). Accordingly, all evidence which Dr. Selsnick would have of......
-
Nehls v. Leonard, 11593
...will be accepted as true. Short, cited above; Bowyer v. Davidson, 94 Nev. 718, 720, 584 P.2d 686 (1978); Potter v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 93 Nev. 90, 92, 560 P.2d 914 (1977). In Nevada, issues of negligence and proximate cause are considered issues of fact and not of law, and thus th......
-
Orcutt v. Miller
...inferences arising therefrom in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion was granted. Potter v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 93 Nev. 90, 560 P.2d 914 (1977); United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 82 S.Ct. 993, 8 L.Ed.2d 176 The amended affidavit of appellant's ......
-
Hicks v. BHY Trucking, Inc.
...in appellant's favor will be accepted as true. Bowyer v. Davidson, 94 Nev. 718, 720, 584 P.2d 686 (1978); Potter v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 93 Nev. 90, 92, 560 P.2d 914 (1977). Appellant shipper Joseph Hicks, doing business as Hicks Engineering Company, contracted with respondent carr......