Scott v. National Reserve Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1936 |
| Docket Number | 32739. |
| Parties | SCOTT v. NATIONAL RESERVE LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing denied, and opinion and judgment in 143 Kan. 678, 56 P.2d 76 modified.
Syllabus by the Court.
Where proof of alleged fraud becomes conclusive by uncontradicted evidence and written admissions showing falsehood concealment, and misrepresentations to disadvantage of other party to insurance contract, question of existence of fraud becomes matter of law instead of issue of fact for jury.
Insurer held not liable on life policy under evidence disclosing as matter of law that insured committed fraud in falsely stating in application that insured had not been examined by any life insurance company without policy having been issued, as respects directed verdict.
"Fraud," unless accompanied by qualifying words, means misrepresentation known to be such, or concealment, or nondisclosure where it is not privileged, by any person intending or expecting thereby to cause a mistake by another to exist or to continue, in order to induce the latter to enter into or refrain from entering into a transaction.
Where the proof of alleged fraud becomes conclusive by uncontradicted evidence and written admissions showing falsehood, concealment, and misrepresentations to the disadvantage of the other party to the insurance contract the question of the existence of fraud becomes a matter of law instead of an issue of fact for the jury.
Appeal from District Court, Crawford County; Leland M. Resler Judge.
On motion for rehearing.
George F. Beezley, of Girard, and Robert Stone, James A. McClure, Robert L. Webb, Beryl R. Johnson, and Ralph W. Oman, all of Topeka, for appellant.
P. E. Nulton and R. L. Letton, both of Pittsburg, for appellee.
In the original opinion in this case only the first and third of the principal assignments of error argued by the appellant were considered, and no comment or decision was made as to the second assignment of error, perhaps because it was thought to have been eliminated by the holding that it was error not to have granted a new trial. Yet it can be more forcibly said that the error, if any, in not granting defendant a new trial would be eliminated if there was error in not sustaining the motion of defendant on which ruling the second assignment of error is based.
This is an action on a life insurance policy by the beneficiary against the insurance company where the answer and cross-petition practically admit all the allegations of the petition, and then allege in detail that false and fraudulent answers were made by the insured in his application for such policy. The reply, being a general denial, the burden of proving the fraud alleged by the defendant was placed upon the defendant, and at the close of defendant's testimony the plaintiff moved the court for a directed verdict in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant likewise moved for a directed verdict in favor of the defendant. The court sustained the motion of the plaintiff and overruled the motion of the defendant, and the jury followed the peremptory instruction and rendered verdict for plaintiff. The defendant excepted to the action of the court in overruling its motion for new trial. This court in the opinion, reported in 143 Kan. 678, 56 P.2d 76, held the trial court was in error in sustaining the plaintiff's motion for an instructed verdict and in overruling defendant's motion for a new trial, and concluded the opinion by directing that a new trial be granted.
Appellant in its motion for rehearing or modification insists that the trial court should have directed a verdict in favor of the defendant as requested by the defendant, and since both parties had moved for a directed verdict the trial court should have directed it according to the uncontradicted evidence. It is urged that a peculiar situation prevails when both parties move at the same time and upon the same evidence for a directed verdict. Some states hold that when both parties so move there is a waiver of a right to a jury trial by either party, and the right of trial is conferred thereby upon the court to determine questions of fact. 64 C.J. 434 and 26 R.C.L. 1080. However, this state has taken a different position where there is a dispute or controversy as to facts, as was said in the second syllabus of Sentney v. Central Cattle Loan Co., 119 Kan. 545, 240 P. 856, where each party filed a motion for a directed verdict, and it was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
National Bank of Andover v. Kbs
...Court of Appeals panel cited Scott v. National Reserve Life Ins. Co., 143 Kan. 678, 680, 56 P.2d 76, modified on other grounds 144 Kan. 224, 58 P.2d 1131 (1936), to suggest that Kansas courts have "consistently recognized that an insurer may not rescind a policy on a mere negligent misrepre......
-
Chambers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... Capitol ... Life Ins. Co., 102 Kan. 650, 171 P. 622; Day v ... National Reserve Life Co., 144 Kan. 619, 62 P.2d 925; ... Jackson v. National Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 150 Kan ... 86, 90 P.2d 1097; Scott v. National Reserve Life Ins ... Co., 143 Kan. 678, 56 P.2d 176; Houston v. Met. Ins ... Co., ... ...
-
Chambers v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
... ... Farmers & Bankers Life Ins. Co., 132 Kan. 748, 297 P ... 730; Scott v. National Reserve Life Ins. Co., 144 ... Kan. 224, 58 P.2d 1131. (2) The attempted proof of the ... ...
-
American v. Cahow
...rescission of insurance contracts. One such case is Scott v. National Reserve Life Ins. Co., 143 Kan. 678, 56 P.2d 76, modified 144 Kan. 224, 58 P.2d 1131 (1936). In Scott, the insured falsely and knowingly denied that he had previously been turned down by other life insurance companies. Co......