Whitlatch v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: BERRY
• Citation: Whitlatch v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 441 P.2d 956, 1968 OK 6 (Okla. 1968)
• Decision Date: 23 January 1968
• Docket Number: No. 41143,41143
• Parties: Aletha C. WHITLATCH, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant in Error.

Page 956

441 P.2d 956

1968 OK 6

Aletha C. WHITLATCH, Plaintiff in Error, v. JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation Defendant in Error.

No. 41143.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

Jan. 23, 1968.

Rehearing Denied March 5, 1968.

Syllabus by the Court

Whether misrepresentations, omissions, concealment of facts, or incorrect statements are made in negotiations for a life insurance policy by or in behalf of the insured are questions of fact for the determination of the jury where the evidence in connection therewith is conflicting.

Appeal from the Common Pleas Court of Tulsa County: Donald D. Cameron, Judge.

Action by beneficiary to recover proceeds of a group life insurance policy. The trial court sustained insurer's motion for directed verdict and entered judgment for insurance company. Reversed and remanded with directions.

Hall & Sublett, by John W. Sublett, Finis Smith, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Gable, Gotwals, Hays, Rubin & Fox, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

BERRY, Justice.

This appeal concerns the correctness of the trial court's action sustaining a motion for directed verdict and entering judgment for defendant in error, in an action brought by plaintiff in error as beneficiary, to recover upon an insurance policy issued by the defendant company.

Defendant issued a group life insurance policy to the Oklahoma Bar Association Group Insurance Trust. Under this group policy insurance coverage was extended to active members of the Oklahoma Bar without medical examination. On May 10, 1961, plaintiff's decedent, an active lawyer 69 years of age, made written application and paid the required premium for a $5,000.00 policy. The application was approved and the policy issued, effective June 1, 1961.

The written application for insurance contained the following matter:

'1. (a) Are you now in sound health? Yes.

(b) Are you now actively at work on a full-time basis (at least 30 hours per week)? Yes.

2. (a) Have you had any ailment, injury or disease within the last five years which has resulted in absence from work ten days or more? No.

(b) Have you ever been told you had blood or sugar in your urine, any heart trouble or disease of the coronary arteries, high blood pressure or cancer or any other malignant disease? No.

(c) Have you ever been declined or postponed for Life or Health Insurance?' No Insured died of coronary thrombosis on July 21, 1961, while the policy was in force and effect. The beneficiary furnished proof of loss and requested payment of policy benefits. The demand for payment was refused and the beneficiary brought suit to recover on the policy.

Defendant's answer admitted the general allegations and issuance of the policy to deceased. Liability was denied upon grounds of misrepresentation, omission, concealment of facts and incorrect statements by the insured material to the risk, all of which had been relied upon to defendant's detriment. By cross- petition defendant realleged the matters upon which the claim of voidness was based; because of reliance upon the untruthful statements defendant was prevented from making investigation and exercising discretion with respect to issuance of the policy in view of insured's medical history; no policy would have been issued had the insured truthfully answered the inquiries in the application. The defendant tendered back the amount of premiums paid, and asked judgment canceling the certificate and holding the policy void. The matters asserted in the cross-petition were denied by plaintiff's answer.

Plaintiff supported her cause of action by introducing into evidence the insurance policy, proof of death and demand for payment, and defendant's denial of liability upon the policy. There was some evidence which tended to show deceased led a normal life after medical treatment, and never had complete advice or understanding of the nature or extent of his debility.

Defendant introduced the original application and the policy, and also medical testimony and records reflecting insured's medical history over many years. Defendant's medical evaluator...