Sandberg v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 13 May 1941
• Docket Number: 173
• Citation: 20 A.2d 230,342 Pa. 326
• Parties: Sandberg, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

20 A.2d 230

342 Pa. 326

Sandberg, Appellant, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co

No. 173

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 13, 1941

Argued April 23, 1941.

Appeal, No. 173, Jan. T., 1941, from order of C.P. No. 6 Phila. Co., Sept. T., 1940, No. 3323, in case of Gertrude Sandberg v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. Order reversed.

Assumpsit on policy of life insurance.

The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

Rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense discharged, opinion by BOK, P.J. Plaintiff appealed.

Error assigned was discharge of rule for judgment for want of a sufficient affidavit of defense.

No valid defense having been set forth by defendant in its affidavit of defense, the order of the learned court below in discharging the rule for judgment is reversed and judgment is here entered in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $5,000, with interest; costs to be paid by appellee.

Arthur S. Arnold, with him Sol Spiegel, for appellant.

Owen B Rhoads, with him Harry Cole Bates and Dechert, Smith & Clark for appellee.

Before SCHAFFER, C.J., MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON and PARKER, JJ.

OPINION

MR. DREW, JUSTICE:

Plaintiff, beneficiary of a life insurance policy issued by defendant upon the life of her husband, brought this action in assumpsit to recover the face amount of the contract after the death of the insured. Defendant filed an affidavit of defense and plaintiff then obtained a rule to show cause why judgment should not be entered in her favor for want of a sufficient defense. After argument this rule was discharged and plaintiff appealed.

Accepting the essential facts to be as they are set forth in defendant's affidavit of defense, they are as follows: Louis Sandberg made written application to defendant for a "Whole Life Policy" of insurance at ordinary premium rates. For an undisclosed reason the defendant refused to issue the policy at such rates, but it did offer to issue a policy at "intermediate rates", which were higher than the ordinary premium rates for this type of insurance. The applicant, being agreeable to this change, executed in writing on a company form an amendment to his application, wherein he changed "the plan of insurance to Whole Life Intermediate Rates". The policy in question was then issued and he paid the first premium thereon. Eight days later he died and defendant thereafter refused to pay plaintiff's claim, alleging that Sandberg had made fraudulent statements in his application, as to medical attendance, existence of certain diseases, and consultations with physicians within five years of the date of the policy. The part of the application in which the alleged fraudulent statements were contained was attached to the policy. It is admitted, however, that the amendment to the application was not attached to the policy, although it provided, inter alia, "Both forms are to be filled in and signed in INK only. One form is to be attached to the Policy. . . . The undersigned hereby amends the application for Life insurance made to your Company. . . . These amendments and declarations are to be considered as a part of the said application and subject to the agreements, covenants, and statements therein contained. The said application, together with these amendments, is to be considered as the basis of and as part of the contract of insurance." For...