Rearden v. State Mut. Life Ins. Co

• Decision Date: 04 April 1908
• Parties: REARDEN . v. STATE MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: South Carolina Supreme Court

60 S.E. 1106
79 S.C. 526

REARDEN .
v.
STATE MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

April 4, 1908.

1. Insurance — Agents — Knowledge of Soliciting Agent—Effect.

Any knowledge gained by a soliciting agent of a life insurance company while acting within the scope of his authority as such agent is the knowledge of the company.

2. Same—Actions on Policies—Evidence— Admissibility.

In an action on a life insurance policy, where the defense was misrepresentation in the application, evidence showing that defendant's agent who received the application had solicited business in the community in which the insured lived was competent.

3. Same — Estoppel of Company — Knowledge of Misrepresentations—Provisions of Application—Effect.

An insurance company, having knowledge through its soliciting agent of misrepresentations in the application, is estopped from asserting forfeiture for the misrepresentation, notwithstanding a provision in the application that the company is to be bound only by statements therein contained, and not by information given to the person soliciting or taking the application, unless it is reduced to writing in the application and presented to the officers of the company at the head office.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 28, Insurance, §§ 968-974.]

4. Trial —Instructions — Constitutional Provisions—Charging on Facts.

In admitting evidence to show that a life insurance soliciting agent had knowledge of the facts misrepresented in an application, the court said: "I don't know much about life insurance companies. They are the smartest people on the face of the globe. Let the courts pass one rule to-day, and they will frame a rule to meet it the next." Held, that the remark was not a violation of Const, art. 5, § 26, providing that judges shall not charge juries in respect to matters of fact.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 46, Trial, §§ 439-466.]

5 Same—Reception of Evidence—Order of Proof.

In an action on a life insurance policy, where the defense was misrepresentation in the

[60 S.E. 1107]

application, reception of evidence relating to conversations showing that the soliciting agent had knowledge of the facts at the time of the application held admissible, notwithstanding the agent had not at that time been offered as a witness, especially since the Legislature has authorized insurance companies to bring actions to cancel the policies upon certain conditions. 6. Insurance—Evidence—Admissibility.

In an action on a life insurance policy, where the defense was misrepresentation in the application, testimony of insured's daughter, the beneficiary, and her husband, that the policy had been offered-to the soliciting agent, is admissible, notwithstanding lack of proof that it was on account of health of the insured.

Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Saluda County; R. C. Watts, Judge.

Action by Lula Rearden against the State Mutual Life Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff and an order denying a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Nelson & Nelson and B. W. Cranch, for appellant.

Thurmond & Ramage, for respondent.

POPE, C. J. Lula Rearden, the plaintiff, brought this action against the defendant to recover $1,000, and interest thereon from March 1, 1907, under a policy of insurance issued by the defendant company on the life of her husband Walter F. Rearden, on the 7th day of September, 1906; the said Walter F. Rearden having died on the 31st day of January, 1907. The defendant admitted that it had issued the policy referred to, the said policy of insurance, and gave as its reasons for not paying the policy that the insured made false statements as to his health when insured. The case came on for trial before his honor, Judge Watts, and a jury, Alter hearing the testimony and the charge of his honor the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant for $1,020. A motion was made for a new trial, which was refused by the circuit judge, thereupon the defendant appealed upon the following eight exceptions. We will now consider these exceptions in their order.

1. Because his honor erred in permitting the witness Timmerman, over objection of counsel, to testify as to W. M. Hazel soliciting business in the community in which Rearden lived, said testimony being intended to show notice to Hazel of said Rearden's condition; the error being that the company was only bound by the...