Supreme Lodge of Modern American Fraternal Order v. Miller
| Decision Date | 09 December 1915 |
| Docket Number | No. 8659.,8659. |
| Citation | 60 Ind.App. 269,110 N.E. 556 |
| Parties | SUPREME LODGE OF MODERN AMERICAN FRATERNAL ORDER v. MILLER. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Superior Court, Allen County; Ed O'Rourke, Judge.
Action by Lydia Miller against the Supreme Lodge of Modern American Fraternal Order. Judgment for plaintiff for $1,000, and defendant appeals. Reversed.
Leonard, Rose & Zollars, of Ft. Wayne, for appellant. William C. Ryan and Charles J. Ryan, both of Ft. Wayne, for appellee.
Appellee, beneficiary of her husband, John Miller, deceased, sued appellant to recover the amount of a fraternal insurance policy issued by it on the life of her said husband. The answer of appellant is a breach of the warranties contained in the application upon which the beneficiary certificate was issued, and which by the terms of such certificate becomes a part of it. The reply stated that statements made to the appellant's medical examiner by the deceased were true, but that in certain respects the medical examiner had not truthfully recorded his answers in the application. A trial by jury resulted in a verdict for appellee for the amount of the certificate, $1,000. The court overruledappellant's motion for new trial, and entered judgment on the verdict. The overruling of this motion is the only error assigned.
[1] John Miller, the insured, in his application for insurance, warranted his answers to the several questions contained in the medical examination to be true, and agreed that such answers should constitute a part of the contract between himself and appellant, and that the same should be binding upon him and his beneficiary, and further agreed that any false statement in such answers, or any of them, or in any part of any of them, should render the contract null and void, and forfeit the rights of himself or beneficiary to all benefits under the policy.
All persons who are competent are at liberty to contract with each other as they may desire, and the courts will enforce such contracts, if legal and not against public policy, when called upon so to do. With respect to insurance contracts, the rule in this state seems to be that where it is expressly agreed that the application for life insurance shall be a part of the certificate or policy and the statements in such application are warranted to be true, such statements will be deemed material, and, if proven to be false, there can be no recovery on the policy, whether they were made innocently or not. Catholic Order of Foresters v. Collins, 51 Ind. App. 285, 99 N. E. 745, 748.
[2] The applications and certificate involved in this case plainly show that the answers were intended by both parties to be treated as warranties, but if they were construed merely as representations, it would make no difference in our holding, for the answers which were proved to be false were material to the risk.
In his application the insured made the following statements: That he had never received sick benefits from any other society; that he had never applied to any company for insurance without receiving a policy of the exact kind applied for; that there was nothing in his physical condition or personal history tending to impair or shorten his life; that he had never had any disease of the abdominal viscera or chronic ulcers; that he had had no illnesses not specifically inquired about; that he then had no physician; and that he had never consulted a physician. The uncontradicted evidence shows that the assured had, upon three different occasions, been paid sick benefits, from the Eagles' Society, for disabling sickness covering a period of 14 weeks; and that but a few months before the date of the application he had applied for reinstatement in the Bankers' Life Insurance Company of Iowa, and had been refused; that he had consulted with and been treated by several physicians during the three years immediately preceding the time of application; that he had been treated for gastritis of the stomach, ulcers, and syphilis, and at one time a conference of physicians was held with a view of performing a major operation to relieve him from his troubles.
There was some evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial