State Life Ins. Co. of Indianapolis v. Westcott

• Decision Date: 20 April 1910
• Citation: 166 Ala. 192,52 So. 344
• Parties: STATE LIFE INS. CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS v. WESTCOTT ET AL.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

52 So. 344

166 Ala. 192

STATE LIFE INS. CO. OF INDIANAPOLIS v. WESTCOTT ET AL.

Supreme Court of Alabama

April 20, 1910

Appeal from City Court of Montgomery; William H. Thomas, Judge.

Action by Samuel H. Westcott and others, as executors, etc., of William D. Westcott, deceased, against the State Life Insurance Company of Indianapolis. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

R. L Harmon and Charles F. Coffin, for appellant.

John V Smith, for appellees.

SIMPSON J.

This suit is by the appellees against the appellant on a policy of insurance on the life of William D. Westcott, deceased. The defense set up is that the defendant is not liable, because of certain false statements, or misrepresentations, made by the deceased, in answering certain questions in the application for the policy; the main point of contention being as to the constitutionality and effect of certain statutes of Alabama.

The application and medical examination were made through a "soliciting agent" in Montgomery, Ala., and sent to the defendant at its office in Indianapolis, Ind. It is stated in the application that applicant agrees "that any contract based upon this application shall, at all times and places, be held to have been made at Indianapolis, Ind and shall in all respects be determined in accordance with the laws of said state." In said application are also the following words: "It is hereby agreed that all the foregoing statements, and also those I make to the company's medical examiner, which are hereby made a part of this application, are specifically intended by me to be warranties, and are offered to the company as a consideration for the policy applied for, which policy I agree to accept," etc.

Section 4583 of the Code of 1907 provides that "all contracts of insurance, the application for which is taken within the state, shall be deemed to have been made within this state, and subject to the laws thereof." Section 4572 provides that "no written or oral misrepresentation, or warranty therein made, in the negotiation of a contract or policy of insurance, or in the application therefor, or proof of loss thereunder, shall defeat or void the policy, or prevent its attaching, unless such misrepresentation is made with actual intent to deceive, or unless the matter misrepresented increase the risk of loss." The insistence of the appellant is that, notwithstanding section 4583, the parties are still at liberty to contract that the policy shall be governed by the laws of another state; and, second, that section 4572 is violative of section 1, art. 14, of the Constitution of the United States, which prohibits the passage of "any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens," etc. The authorities cited by appellant are to the point that, as a general proposition, citizens may make contracts, providing that they shall be governed by the laws of another state; but a reading of the entire chapter containing the sections cited shows that the intention of the Legislature was that all contracts made on applications signed in the state should be governed by its provisions, and that the statute should override any provision in the contract contrary thereto.

In a case in which a statute required the insurer, by its agent to examine the property and fix its value before issuing a fire policy, and made it liable for the entire amount of the policy, while the policy provided for the usual way of fixing the actual cash value of...