Prudential Ins. Co. v. Hill

• Decision Date: 01 October 1935
• Docket Number: Case Number: 25342
• Citation: 174 Okla. 33,1935 OK 903,49 P.2d 1067
• Parties: PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. v. HILL
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1935 OK 903

49 P.2d 1067

174 Okla. 33

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO. v. HILL

Case Number: 25342

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: October 1, 1935

Syllabus

¶0 1. INSURANCE--Application for Industrial Insurance Held Admissible in Evidence Though no Copy Attached to Policy.

Industrial policies are excepted from the provisions of chapter 51. art. 1, O. S. 1931, and the application, although not attached to the policy, may be received in evidence where fraud is properly pleaded as a defense and the provision of section 10519, providing that unless the application is attached to the policy the same shall not be considered a part of the policy or received in evidence, does not apply to such policies.

2. SAME--Policy Sued on Held Industrial Policy.

Held, that the policy in question is an industrial policy, and that the application with the statements therein contained need not be attached to the policy in order that the same may be admissible in evidence.

3. STATUTES--Sufficiency of Title Where Subject Expressed in General Terms.

Under article 5, sec. 57, Oklahoma Constitution, the title of a bill may be very general, and need not specify every clause in the statute, it being sufficient if they are all referable and cognate to the subject expressed: and when the subject is expressed in general terms, everything which is necessary to make a complete enactment in regard to it, or which results in a complement of thought contained in the general expression, is included in and authorized by it. City of Pond Creek v. Haskell, 21 Okla. 711, 97 P. 338.

4. INSURANCE--Question of Fact as to Falsity of Statements Made by Applicant and His Intention.

The question of the falsity of statements contained in a life or accident insurance policy, and the intent of the applicant in making them, is a question of fact for the jury, or for the court sitting as a jury.

Appeal from County Court, Ottawa County; John H. Venable, Judge.

Action by Ollie hill against the Prudential Insurance Company of America. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

Roy P. Swanson and Ray McNaughton, for plaintiff in error.

Ralph W. Hyatt, Meservey, Michaels, Blackmar, Newkirk & Eager, and Commons & Chandler, for defendant in error.

CORN, J.

¶1 This action was originally brought in the county court of Ottawa county for the recovery of the sum of $ 540 on a life insurance policy. The defendant, the Prudential Life Insurance Company of America. defended on the alleged ground that the applicant was not in sound health at the time the policy was issued, and that according to a provision in the policy rendering the same void if the applicant was not in sound health at the time, of its issuance, the policy never went into effect.

¶2 The trial court instructed a verdict as follows:

"Gentlemen of the jury, in this case plaintiff sues the defendant on an insurance policy in the sum of $ 540; the defendant denies all of the allegation--denies any liability by reason of the insurance policy, and bases its defense on the proposition that the insurance policy is based on the application and answers given therein. Under the laws of this state the insurance company is required to attach to the insurance policy a copy of the application and that unless that is done that cannot be interposed--that is the claim of false answers having been given in the application, cannot be interposed as a defense.

"Therefore, I will direct that the jury return a verdict in favor of the plaintiff for the amount sued on."

¶3 The defendant objected to the foregoing instruction and moved the court to direct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant as follows:

"Mr. Swanson: Let the record show that the defendant objects to the remarks of the court in that the court has misstated the defenses in this case--has not in any way indicated that the defense of the sound health provision of the policy itself is considered in any way by the court in arriving at its conclusion. That the policy itself provides that the insured must be in sound health on the date of the policy, and that the evidence clearly shows that the insured on the date of the policy was suffering from tuberculosis and many other ailments. And now the defendant moves the court to direct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the defendant under the evidence in the case."

¶4 The motion was overruled and the defendant saved its exception. The jury rendered its verdict accordingly, and the court rendered judgment for plaintiff according to the instructed verdict. The defendant insurance company brought this appeal for the reversal of said judgment, and the parties will be referred to herein as plaintiff and defendant in the same order as they appeared in the trial court.

¶5 The trial court refused to receive in evidence the application or any testimony as to the statements contained in the application, on the ground that the application was not attached to the policy and made a part of the contract. The court evidently based its ruling upon section 10519, O. S. 1931, which provides as follows:

"In any claim arising under a policy which has been issued in this state by any life insurance company, without previous medical examination or without the knowledge and consent of the insured, or in case said insured is a minor, without the consent of the parent, guardian, or other person having legal custody of said minor, the statements made in the application shall, in the absence of fraud, be deemed representations and not warranties; Provided, however, that the company shall not be debarred from proving as a defense to such claim that said statements are willfully false, fraudulent or misleading: and provided, further, that every policy which contains a reference to the application of the insured, either as a part of the policy or as having any bearing thereon, must have attached thereto a correct copy of the application, and unless so attached the same shall not be considered a part of the policy or received in evidence."

¶6 But the defendant contends that the policy in question is an industrial policy and is excepted from the provisions of the statute just quoted by reason of section 10530. O. S. 1931. which provides in part as follows:

"This article shall not apply to annuities, industrial policies, nor to associations operating on the fraternal plan, nor to farm mutual companies. * * *"

¶7 The question is raised as to whether the policy is actually an industrial policy, and entitled to be classified as insurance, excepted from the provisions of section 10519, supra. We find no statute prescribing any particular form for an industrial policy, yet there must be certain characteristics to distinguish an industrial policy from other kinds of insurance. In this connection we refer to an observation made by this court in the case of Prudential Insurance Company v. Howell, Adm'r, 144 Okla. 166, 289 P. 734, which is stated in the following language:

"* * * From an examination of numerous authorities on the question, it seems that industrial insurance in a general sense means policies issued in small amounts in consideration of weekly payments as distinguished from ordinary insurance which is usually in large amounts and maintained by annual, semi-annual, or quarterly premiums. The underlying principle of the industrial policy is to provide a means whereby the laboring or more unfortunate masses may be able to carry small amounts of insurance upon the payments of a small proportion of weekly wages or earnings to meet such exigencies as may usually arise in case of death. The smallness of the amount and of the premium paid, together with the purposes for which it was designed, made it highly desirable that upon the death of the insured, payment be made promptly without expense in the form of litigation by claimants, proceedings for the appointment of a personal representative, and without unnecessary risk on the part of the insurer. In order to accomplish these results, the clause known as the 'Facility of Payment'

...