The State ex rel. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Allen

• Decision Date: 06 October 1925
• Docket Number: 25703
• Parties: THE STATE ex rel. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WILLIAM H. ALLEN et al., Judges of St. Louis Court of Appeals
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

276 S.W. 877

310 Mo. 378

THE STATE ex rel. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. WILLIAM H. ALLEN et al., Judges of St. Louis Court of Appeals

No. 25703

Supreme Court of Missouri

October 6, 1925

Opinion of Court of Appeals quashed.

Fordyce Holliday & White, Walter R. Wayne and Bennett C. Clark for relator; William J. Tully of counsel.

(1) The Court of Appeals decision, holding that actual fraud or corrupt motive is essential to the defense of misrepresentation made to a suit on a contract of life insurance, is in conflict with the statute, as interpreted by decisions of this court, and contravenes said decisions. R S. 1919, sec. 6142; Kern v. Supreme Council, 167 Mo 487; Pac. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Glaser, 245 Mo. 386; Carter v. Met. Ins. Co., 275 Mo. 91. (a) The statute applies alike to warranties and representations and draws no distinction between innocent and fraudulent misrepresentations. Bruck v. Ins. Co., 194 Mo.App. 537. (b) A representation of a fact may be false or untrue through mistake, ignorance or negligence, in which case, if it induces the risk which the assurer would not otherwise have taken, it is material. Actual fraud is not in such case a material factor. 3 Joyce, Insurance, sec. 1902. (2) The Court of Appeals' decision in in conflict with the several statutes which prohibit reversing a judgment for errors or defects in pleadings or instructions, and contravenes decisions of this court interpreting and construing the same. R. S. 1919, secs. 1276, 1513, and 1550, clauses 5, 8 and 9; Grohman v. Maccabees, 237 S.W. 878; National Bank v. Security Ins. Co., 283 Mo. 352; Moloney v. Boatmen's Bank, 288 Mo. 458.

James J. O'Donohoe for respondents.

(1) The opinion of the Court of Appeals holding that actual fraud or corrupt motive is essential to the defense of misrepresentations made to an action on a contract of life insurance is not in conflict with the statute as construed by the decisions of this court. Pac. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Glaser, 245 Mo. 377; Melville v. Business Men's Assur. Co., 253 S.W. 68, 259 S.W. 77; Caldwell v. Ins. Co., 245 S.W. 602; Met. Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 72 Ill.App. 628, affirmed 175 Ill. 322; Prudential Ins. Co. v. Sellers, 54 Ind. 326; Ins. Co. v. Ford, 126 Ky. 49; 3 Cooley, p. 1956 (f); 6 Cooley, p. 642; Goucher v. N. T. Men's Assn., 20 F. 598; Fidelity M. L. Assn. v. Jeffords, 107 F. 402; Owens v. Ins. Co., 94 N. J. L. 770. (2) The decision of the Court of Appeals is not in conflict with the several statutes and decisions cited by relator. Neither the statutes nor decisions there cited have any bearing on this case, for reasons, amongst which is the question that a petition which states no cause of action or an answer which states no defense may be raised for the first time on appeal. Wolf v. Harris, 267 Mo. 405; Luck Const. Co. v. Railway, 200 Mo.App. 450.

OPINION

Walker, P. J.

This is an application in certiorari asking this court to quash the record of the St. Louis Court of Appeals in the case of Hattie Simpson, plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, defendant, in which, after a trial to a jury, a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant on an insurance policy issued by the defendant on the life of the plaintiff's husband. This judgment was reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals. The validity of the Court of Appeals' ruling is assailed on the ground of an alleged conflict of same with decisions of the Supreme Court.

The limitations of our right of review in cases of this character are either ignored or are misunderstood by the relator. As we have repeatedly said, our jurisdiction in certiorari, so far as concerns the rulings of the Courts of Appeals, extends under the plain terms of the Constitution, only to cases in which conflicts of opinions are alleged to exist between the rulings of the Courts of Appeals and those of this court. It is futile, therefore, to cite in support of an application for this writ the rulings of the Courts of Appeals or those of other jurisdictions or our own statutes, unless the latter have been construed by a Court of Appeals contrary to the construction given to them by the Supreme Court.

The grounds of conflict in the case at bar stated generally, consist of a ruling of the Court of Appeals concerning the nature and effect of misrepresentations alleged to have been made by the applicant for insurance and the manner in which the same should be pleaded. The answer of the defendant, as set forth in the Court of Appeals opinion, so far as the same pleads misrepresentations, is that the insured, in reply to inquiries propounded to him by the medical examiner, stated that he was in sound health; that he had not been suffering from the disease of diabetes; that he had not been attended by a physician and had not been under the case of any physician within two years before the date of said application; that he had not been under treatment in any dispensary or hospital or an inmate of any institution; that he had never met with any serious personal injury, nor had he ever been seriously ill; that the defendant, relying upon the truthfulness of said statements and believing the same to be true and correct, issued its policy of insurance whereby it insured the applicant for the amount stated therein in favor of the plaintiff; that said policy was obtained by misrepresentations which were material in that the applicant at the time he was examined and made said statements was then suffering from diabetes and had so suffered for a long time prior thereto; that he had been under the care of a physician and was not in sound health on the date of said application; that had the defendant been aware of the falsity of said statements and answers made by the applicant to the medical examiner, it would not have issued its policy of insurance as aforesaid; that the death of the insured was caused by the disease of diabetes from which he was suffering when he made the application for the policy.

The Court of Appeals held "that the answer contained no averment concerning the misrepresentations of the insured, other than that they were untrue; that it is not alleged that these untrue answers were wilfully made by the insured for the purpose of defrauding the company, either in the words above stated, or in equivalent language; that the word 'fraud' is not used, nor any words charging the same. In short, that the answer is defective, although it states that the representations made were in regard to a material matter, in not averring that the statements were wilfully and knowingly made for a fraudulent or a corrupt motive by the insured; and the respondent -- the relator here -- does not seek to avoid this difficulty by asking the Court of Appeals to construe the answer with favorable intendments to comprehend such an allegation; that the defense is that under the statute (Sec. 6142, R. S. 1919) it does not matter whether the false representations were made in bad faith or for the purpose of deceiving the insurer if they relate to a material matter touching the risk; that under the terms of the policy a distinction is drawn between innocent and fraudulent representations, in that it provides, in the absence of fraud, that the statements of the insured shall be deemed representations and not warranties and that no such statement shall avoid the policy, unless it is contained in the written application therefor; that warranties with the exceptions provided are abolished by this...