W. G. Schofield's Admx. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co
| Decision Date | 27 October 1906 |
| Parties | W. G. SCHOFIELD'S ADMX. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
May Term, 1906.
ASSUMPSIT on a policy of life insurance. Plea, the general issue and notice. Trial by jury at the September Term, 1905 Washington County, Powers, J., presiding. Verdict and judgment for the plaintiff. The defendant excepted.
Judgment affirmed.
Zed S. Stanton, and Senter & Senter for the defendant.
Present ROWELL, C. J., TYLER, MUNSON, WATSON, and MILES, JJ.
Three questions are raised in this case, viz: first, did the court below err in refusing to direct a verdict for the defendant; second, was it error for the court to deny the request of counsel for the defendant, for "leave to argue to the jury that California and Colorado were places where consumptives go." and third, was the charge of the court respecting what constituted illness, error?
A motion to set aside the verdict was made by the defendant, and a large number of requests to charge were attached to the bill of exceptions, but they did not show that there was any exception taken to a refusal to comply with them, and the defendant makes no point as to either; hence they are disregarded by us in the consideration of this case.
The action is assumpsit upon a life insurance policy issued upon the application of the plaintiff's intestate. The policy bears date Nov. 30,-1901, and the considerations expressed are the answers and statements contained in the printed and written application for the policy and the annual premium of fortyfour dollars and sixty-nine cents; which answers and statements in the application are, by the terms of the policy, made warranties and a part of the policy. The terms of the policy are also made subject to the conditions set forth on its reverse side, and provide that those conditions are made and accepted by the insured as a part of the contract of insurance. The only condition alluded to in the policy having a bearing upon any question in this case, is the third. That provides, that, if any answer or statement in the application is not true, the policy shall be void and all premiums paid shall be forfeited. The application, among other things, contained a statement, that it was agreed and warranted by the undersigned, the insured, that any false, incorrect or untrue answer should render the policy null and void and should forfeit all payments made thereon, and that the answers and statements contained in the application and those made to the medical examiner should be the basis and become a part of that contract of insurance.
At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved for a verdict on the ground, as it claimed, that the undisputed evidence in the case showed that the insured falsely answered the following questions contained in his statement to the medical examiner, viz.: "Have you ever had consumption? " and "Have you consulted any other physician, if so when and for what?" Both questions were answered, "No."
The authorities do not all agree respecting the effect of an incorrect answer to a question contained in a statement made by the insured to a medical examiner, where the question calls for an opinion and the answer is honestly made in the belief that it is true. Those favoring the rule, that it does not amount to a warranty and so does not render the policy void, base their reasoning upon the presumption that the insurer only expects that the insured will give his honest opinion, as that was all he could give; that, when a correct answer could only be given from an examination by a physician, the insurer, by taking the answer of the insured through its own physician, impliedly gives the insured to understand that an honest and full answer, so far as he knew, is all that is required.
Such are the cases referred to in May on Insurance, 2nd. ed. § 296. In that section the author states as a conclusion arrived at from the weight of authorities upon that subject, as follows: Later along in the same section the author says: "In such case the rule seems to be, that if the inquiry calls for an answer which involves a matter of opinion, the applicant is answerable only for the honesty of his opinion, although the answer be untrue in fact."
Cases holding that such incorrect answers render the policy void, whether honestly made or not are referred to by the same author in section 297 in the following language: "Though some of the cases make use of language strong enough to require that he must answer truthfully at his peril, without regard to the applicant's knowledge of, or reason to believe, the truth of the facts as stated or omitted, yet as we have before seen, the facts in those cases did not require so strong and so extreme a ruling; and it may be doubted, if, in view of the current of opinion, in a case presenting the exact point, the courts using this language will not be found in accord with the other authorities."
Our own State seems to have followed that class of cases which hold that an incorrect answer in the application or statement made to the medical examiner is a false warranty and renders the policy void, whether the applicant believed the answer to be true or false. Powers v. N. E. Mut. L. Association, 50 Vt. 630. That being the holding of our own Court, it becomes unnecessary to inquire as to where the balance of authority lies. Following, therefore, our own decided case, which is similar to the case at bar, we hold, that the answers to the questions, "Have you ever had consumption?" and "Have you ever consulted any other physician, and if so, when and for what?" were warranties, and, if false, rendered the policy void.
The question, then, arises, does the undisputed evidence show, that they or either of them were false?
It is elementary, that, if there is any substantial evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim, the court will not direct a verdict for the defendant, but must submit the question to the jury.
The defendant's evidence tended to prove that at the time the policy was obtained by the insured, he had consumption. This evidence was based upon opinion formed from the discovery of tubercular bacilli in the sputum of the insured and upon personal...
To continue reading
Request your trial