Progressive Life Insurance Co. v. Preston
Decision Date | 24 May 1937 |
Docket Number | 4-4670 |
Citation | 105 S.W.2d 549,194 Ark. 84 |
Parties | PROGRESSIVE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. PRESTON |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Sevier Circuit Court; A. P. Steel, Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed and cause dismissed.
Alfred Featherston, Duty & Duty and E. M. Arnold, for appellant.
John Owens and Millwee & Goodson, for appellee.
On December 8, 1934, Alice Preston made application to the appellant insurance company for a joint policy of insurance on her own life and that of Birdie Walker, each to be the beneficiary of the other. The policy was issued on the 13th day of December, 1934, and shortly thereafter delivered to Alice Preston. On February 12, 1935, Birdie Walker died and upon proof of death being submitted, appellant denied liability. This action followed and was submitted to the court sitting as a jury upon the evidence adduced. There was a judgment in favor of the appellee from which comes this appeal.
There are a number of assignments of error urged for reversal none of which we need notice except the one first argued, namely that under the contract and undisputed proof a verdict should have been directed for the appellant. Among other grounds is the contention that in the application for the policy appellee warranted that Birdie Walker did not have tuberculosis, that she did not then have, and had never had any other disease or mental defect, that she had never been in any hospital or institution of like nature for treatment, that she had not consulted a doctor during the eight months preceding the making of the application and was free from disease at that time.
The pertinent provisions of the policy are as follows:
It is admitted that the application for the insurance was made without the knowledge or consent of Birdie Walker, who was not a blood relative of appellee. Appellee claims, however, that Birdie Walker was indebted to her in the sum of $ 50 for money borrowed in 1933 and 1934. It is stated by appellee in the application that Birdie Walker was thirty-five years old. The application contained the following:
While the language of the quoted provisions of the policy and application is not literally that of the contract considered in Springfield Life Ins. Co. v. Slaughter, 183 Ark. 692, 38 S.W.2d 13, it is the same in all substantial particulars. The distinction pointed out by the appellee that in the case cited the application was attached to the policy, while in the instant case the original application was retained in the files of appellant company, is unimportant. The essential fact which renders the two contracts of like nature is the provision in both that the application is a part of the contract. In the application the answers to the questions propounded are warranted to be true, full and complete in every particular; that they are made to obtain the policy of insurance and that the said statements "shall be a condition precedent to any recovery of benefits that may be provided in the policy issued" thereon. Further, the applicants "vouch for the truthfulness of all answers to the questions and agree for the applicants to conditions made in said application."
As is said in the case cited, supra, The doctrine of the cited case finds support in Cunningham v. National Americans, 123 Ark. 620, 185 S.W. 786, and Royal Neighbors of America v. Tate, 186 Ark. 1138, 57 S.W.2d 1055.
Under the contract, the only question to be determined here is the truthfulness or untruthfulness of the answers made to the questions propounded in the application. It conclusively appears that the answers were false. Six disinterested witnesses who knew and had opportunity to observe Birdie Walker in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Union Life Insurance Co. v. Johnson
... ... 243] were false ... The validity of this limitation upon liability is not ... questioned as a legal proposition. Progressive Life ... Ins. Co. v. Preston, 194 Ark. 84, 105 ... S.W.2d 549, and Progressive Life Ins. Co. v ... Hulbert, 196 Ark. 352, 118 S.W.2d 268, are ... ...
-
Union Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson
...questions were false. The validity of this limitation upon liability is not questioned as a legal proposition. Progressive Life Ins. Co. v. Preston, 194 Ark. 84, 105 S.W.2d 549, and Progressive Life Ins. Co. v. Hulbert, 196 Ark. 352, 118 S.W.2d 268, are recent cases this limitation upon lia......
-
Progressive Life Insurance Co. v. Hulbert
... ... questions contained in the application for the insurance, he ... had stated that he was in sound health ... The ... policy here sued on is identical with the policy sued on in ... the case of Progressive Life Ins. Co. v ... Preston, 194 Ark. 84, ... [118 S.W.2d 270] ... 105 S.W.2d 549, it being provided in this policy, as it was ... in that, that no obligation was assumed unless the applicant ... was in sound health on the date of the delivery of the ... policy. The answers of the applicants for the insurance in ... ...
-
Progressive Life Ins. Co. v. Dooley, 4-7803.
...issuance of the policies the Company had information regarding the physical impairments complained of. In Progressive Life Insurance Co. v. Preston, 194 Ark. 84, 105 S.W.2d 549, Mr. Justice Butler discussed the legal effect of warranties such as those involved in the instant appeal. It is n......