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

• Decision Date: 25 May 1923
• Citation: 245 Mass. 373,139 N.E. 538
• Parties: REIDY v. JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

245 Mass. 373

139 N.E. 538

REIDY

v.JOHN HANCOCK MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

May 25, 1923.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Suffolk County; George A. Sanderson, Judge.

Action by Nora M. Reidy against the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company to recover on a life insurance policy. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant excepts. Exceptions sustained, and judgment entered for defendant.

Wm. J. Patron, of Boston, for plaintiff.

Walter I. Badger and Walter I. Badger, Jr., both of Boston, for defendant.

BRALEY, J.

The trial court should have ruled, as requested by the defendant, that the action could not be maintained. The policy. having lapsed for nonpayment of overdue premiums, the insured signed certificates of insurability for reinstatement of the policy, the material part of which is of the following tenor:

‘I, being the person on whose life the within mentioned policy was issued by the John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, * * * hereby request said company to reinstate said policy which under its terms is now lapsed, upon condition of the truth of the following statements and agreements. Such reinstatement, if made, shall revive any indebtedness to said company and the lien therefor existing under said policy at the date of lapse. I hereby certify that I am now in good health and that during the time, including the grace period, since the premium now in default became due, I have had no injury, ailment, illness, or disease, nor symptoms of any such, neither have I consulted a physician, except as noted below (enter on dotted line any exceptions to the foregoing statements). None. I have stated all exceptions.’

The uncontradicted evidence, as the judge instructed the jury, showed that between July 8, 1917, and August 15, 1917, and between January 8, 1918, and February 12, 1918, the date when the last two certificates were respectively submitted, the insured had been ill and had been treated more or less constantly by a physician for epilepsy, from which he never recovered. The statements in the applications in question therefore were false, and ordinarily, the insured having failed to comply with the precedent conditions named in the certificate or application, the policy was not revived as a living enforceable contract under which the plaintiff as the beneficiary could recover. Miles v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Co., 3 Gray, 580;Cobb v. Covenant Mutual Benefit Association, 153 Mass. 176, 26 N. E. 230,10 L. R. A. 666, 25 Am. St. Rep. 619;White v. Provident Savings Life Assurance Co., 163 Mass. 108, 39 N. E. 771,27 L. R. A. 398;Fondi v. Boston Mutual Life Insurance Co., 224 Mass. 6, 112 N. E. 612;Ballard v. Globe & Rutgers Fire...