Silverstein v. Knights and Ladies of Security

• Decision Date: 14 May 1915
• Docket Number: 19,131 - (75)
• Parties: ABRUM SILVERSTEIN v. KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

152 N.W. 724

129 Minn. 340

ABRUM SILVERSTEIN v. KNIGHTS AND LADIES OF SECURITY

Nos. 19,131 - (75)

Supreme Court of Minnesota

May 14, 1915

Action in the district court for Hennepin county to recover $2,000 upon defendant's benefit certificate upon the life of Rosa Silverstein. The case was tried before Hale, J., who granted defendant's motion to dismiss the action. From an order denying his motion for a new trial, plaintiff appealed. Affirmed.

SYLLABUS

Mutual benefit insurance -- dismissal of action.

The trial court properly dismissed this action on the ground that the evidence shows conclusively that plaintiff is not entitled to recover.

George P. Leonard and M. Rose, for appellant.

William G. White, for respondent.

OPINION

TAYLOR, C.

Plaintiff sued to recover the amount of a benefit certificate issued by defendant, a fraternal beneficiary association, to Rosa Silverstein and payable to plaintiff at her death. At the close of the evidence, the trial court dismissed the action. Thereafter plaintiff moved for a new trial, and appealed from an order denying his motion.

The contract provided that the certificate should be void in case the questions in the medical examination of the insured were not answered truly. One of the questions in this examination was as follows:

"Have you had any illness, constitutional disease or injury that has confined you to the house during the past five years? If so, give particulars."

This question was answered, "No." Another question was as follows:

"Have you undergone any surgical operation, or have you any bodily malformation or weakness?"

This was also answered, "No." At the trial it was admitted that, about 15 months prior to such examination, the insured had undergone a surgical operation for the removal of gall stones, for the separation of adhesions from the gall bladder, and for appendicitis, and had been confined to a hospital in consequence thereof for at least three weeks also that her death resulted from a subsequent operation for the same ailment. In view of these facts, plaintiff makes no claim that the above answers were not such as would invalidate the insurance. He could not well do so. Even if the answer to the second question should be held as applying only to the latter part of that question, there is no ambiguity in the answer to the other. Plaintiff's contention is that it was a question for the jury whether the insured in fact...