Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Gibbs
| Decision Date | 13 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 961 |
| Parties | SOVEREIGN CAMP, W.O.W. v. GIBBS. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1928
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W.W. Haralson, Judge.
Action on a policy of life insurance, or beneficiary certificate, by Ola Gibbs against the Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
C.H Roquemore, of Montgomery, for appellant.
H.G Bailey, of Boaz, for appellee.
There was no error in sustaining the objections to the interrogatories to Dr. Cloyd, the defendant's "Sovereign Physician," or, if there was as to some it was without injury, as defendant got the substantial benefit of same under answers to other interrogatories. As to what the witness would have done had he gotten other or different information as to the insured's health was but a speculative conclusion.
There was no error in sustaining the objection to interrogatory 11 to witness Yates. In the first place it called for the reason or motive of the witness; and, second, the only contention of counsel as to its relevancy was that it tended to disapprove the plaintiff's replication, which said replication was charged out by the trial court.
Charges 1 and 2, given at the request of the plaintiff, asserted the law. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., v. Hutchinson, 214 Ala. 540, 108 So. 520. If abstract or misleading as argued in brief of counsel, this may have justified a refusal, but did not render the giving of same reversible error.
It is next insisted that the defendant should have had the general affirmative charge because its special pleas, or some of them, were proven beyond dispute. In this we are not dealing with a motion for a new trial or the weight of the evidence but whether or not there was a conflict or inference from which a conflict could be reasonably drawn. There was no doubt but what the insured misstated the fact that he had not previously consulted a physician within the time prescribed, but as to whether the misrepresentation was made with the intent to deceive or increased the risk was a question for the jury. There was considerable evidence tending to show that the diagnosis was of such a malady as tended to increase the risk, but, unless the accused knew it, which was a question for the jury, he did not make the misstatement with the intent to deceive. As to whether or not the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Young
...issue. Plaintiff relies upon General Acc., F. & L. Assur. Corp. v. Jordan, 230 Ala. 407, 161 So. 240, and Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Gibbs, 217 Ala. 108, 114 So. 915, a submission of the matter for the jury's determination. But a reading of these cases discloses their dissimilarity to the ......
-
Woodmen of the World Life Ins. Soc. v. Phillips
...Camp, W. O. W., 218 Ala. 255, 118 So. 456; Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Snead, 217 Ala. 669, 117 So. 307, 310; Sovereign Camp, W. O. W. v. Gibbs, 217 Ala. 108, 114 So. 915. These authorities also answer assignment No. 1, which is based upon the failure of the trial court to grant the motion fo......
-
Reliance Life Ins. Co. v. Sneed
...of the statements made in the application. 37 Corpus Juris, 625, § 423. And so it has been held by this court. Sov. Camp, W.O.W., v. Gibbs (Ala.Sup.) 114 So. 915, 916. It competent for the parties to stipulate in the policy that the insurance company shall not be constructively charged with......
-
Sovereign Camp, W.O.W. v. Moore
...did in fact cause death sooner than if he had been free from such disease, and therefore, the risk of loss was increased, is a good plea. Sovereign Camp, W.O.W., v. Hutchinson, 214 Ala. 543, 108 So. 520; Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks v. Riggins, 214 Ala. 79, 107 So. 44; Reliance......