Thomas v. American Workmen
| Decision Date | 26 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | 15264. |
| Parties | THOMAS v. AMERICAN WORKMEN. |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
T A. Houser, of St. Matthews, and Brown & Watts, of Barnwell, for appellant.
W R. Symmes and L. Marion Gressette, both of St. Matthews, for respondent.
The plaintiff sought damages against the defendant for its alleged fraud and deceit, and the action resulted in her favor for $100, actual damages, and $400, punitive damages.
The defendant issued to the plaintiff an insurance policy on April 27, 1938, which designated her husband, James Thomas as beneficiary. Plaintiff alleges and the proof tends to show that at the time she applied for the insurance policy, the agent of the defendant, who solicited it, represented to her that its sick benefit provision would cover sickness of any character which she might suffer, and that such sick benefits, amounting to $12 per week, would become operative and payable from the first day of illness, whereas the policy when delivered provided for the payment of $6 per week for sick benefits, and excepted certain disabling illnesses, and excluded the first week's sickness from the benefit provision.
After keeping the policy and paying the premium thereon for a period of six months, plaintiff became seriously ill from a disability which was excepted in the policy, and the refusal of the company to pay the benefits for the two weeks of her illness gave rise to this action. The claim was denied upon the ground that the illness from which the plaintiff suffered was excluded by the provisions of the policy.
The plaintiff and her husband are illiterate negroes, unable to read or write, and, as shown by the record, are utterly without experience in business transactions. After being advised by the company following her illness that her policy provided that no sick benefit would be paid for the first week's sickness, and that the weekly benefit amounted to only $6, she had the policy read to her by two friends residing in the community. The evidence tends to show that the policy in the particulars to which we have referred was misrepresented to the plaintiff by the authorized agent of the defendant, whom she and her husband had known for many years, and that she would not have purchased the policy if she had not believed that it contained the provisions represented to her.
The defendant assigns error because the trial judge overruled its motion for a directed verdict which was made upon the ground that the plaintiff is barred from recovery, even though the representations were fraudulently made, by reason of her own negligence and gross contributory negligence, and conscious or reckless disregard of her duty, in that she failed to avail herself of the opportunity and means at hand to protect her interest and safeguard her rights. It is argued that the plaintiff knew that she was bound by the terms of the contract, knew that she should ascertain its terms, and that she had access at all times to persons who could and would inform her of its contents, and therefore she should not be heard to complain of the alleged fraud practiced upon her.
In the case before us, we have an ignorant negro woman, with an equally ignorant husband and with no circumstances to incite suspicion, dealing with a representative of the defendant who was well informed, and who according to the undisputed evidence, fraudulently misrepresented the provisions of the policy in material particulars. Under numerous decisions, we must give to the evidence for the plaintiff, and all reasonable inferences arising therefrom, the strongest probative force which it will bear. It is inferable from this testimony that the alleged misrepresentations were made deliberately and intentionally. The plaintiff testified that the agent assigned as a reason for the apparently high premium provided in the policy, that it contained the favorable provisions with reference to sick benefits falsely represented by him. The evidence likewise shows that the defendant's agent professed to have read the policy to the plaintiff, and that he gave her further assurance that it carried the sick benefit provisions which she believed it contained. The agent was not in attendance upon the trial, and the testimony of the plaintiff and her husband was not contradicted.
The right to rely upon a representation is inseparably connected with the correlative problem of the duty of a representee to use diligence in ascertaining the truth with respect to the representations made to him. With regard to the need and degree of such diligence in cases involving fraud, the authorities are not in complete accord. Some courts have held...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
First Nat. Bank of Greenville v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.
... ... action against L. D. Boykin, administrator of Simpson Hunter, ... and his bondsman, American Surety Company, for about $1,800, ... which the plaintiffs alleged had been misapplied by the ... Mr. Justice Fishburne in the case of Thomas v. American ... Workmen, 197 S.C. 178, 14 S.E.2d 886, 136 A.L.R. 1, for ... it was there held ... ...
-
Beaumont v. Branch
...true in circumstances where one should have utilized precaution and protection to safeguard his interests.” Id. (citing Thomas v. Am. Workmen, 14 S.E.2d 886 (S.C. 1941)). Beaumont does not state facts which plausibly show that had a right to rely on defendants or that his reliance was reaso......
-
Austin v. Independent Life and Acc. Ins. Co.
...from which a jury could find Ms. Austin had a right to rely upon the representations of Mr. Harter. See Thomas v. American Workmen, 197 S.C. 178, 182, 14 S.E.2d 886, 887 (1941) ("[A] wrongdoer cannot shield himself from liability by asking the law to condemn the credulity of the ignorant an......
-
Clinkscales v. North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... claims or in overruling the motion for a new trial on this ... ground. See Thomas v. American Workmen, 197 S.C ... 178, 14 S.E.2d 886, 136 A.L.R. 1, where it was expressly held ... ...