Wright's Adm'r v. Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co.

• Citation: 15 S.W. 242,91 Ky. 208
• Parties: WRIGHT'S ADM'R v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO.
• Decision Date: 05 February 1891
• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky

15 S.W. 242

91 Ky. 208

WRIGHT'S ADM'R v. NORTHWESTERN MUT. LIFE INS. CO.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 5, 1891

Appeal from circuit court, Harrison county.

W. P D. Bush, for appellant.

Barnett Miller & Barnett and Forman & Cason, for appellee.

LEWIS J.

For the recited consideration of a written application and statements therein, referred to and made part of the contract, payment of $188.09 made, and the same sum agreed to be paid annually for 15 years, appellee issued, April 18, 1882, a policy, by which it was agreed to insure the life of William Wright in the sum of $3,000. It appears that Rebecca Wright, his mother, was originally intended to be named as beneficiary of the policy, though issued to him; and to her, in Cynthiana where she resided, Gillman & Rankin, soliciting agents presented the blank form of application, and propounded all the questions, and by her were all the answers given, though written out by them. After she had signed the application, it was taken to Lexington by one of the agents, and for the first time presented to, and, without further interrogation signed by, him. But upon receiving the application thus made out at its principal office in Milwaukee, Wis., sent through and countersigned by Robinson & Owens, general agents at Louisville, appellee declined to insure for benefit of Rebecca Wright during life of her husband; and thereupon the application was altered by erasing her name, and the policy issued for the benefit as well as in the name of William Wright, though it was delivered to and the first premium was paid by her. He having died in November, 1882, from injuries received while employed in the yard of a railroad company at Lexington, appellant, administrator of his estate, brought this action to recover amount of the policy; but judgment is resisted upon the grounds that the assured violated a clause of the policy, forbidding his engaging in switching, coupling, or uncoupling railway cars, and of misrepresentation made in respect to his occupation, which was stated in the application to have been that of a laborer. Upon trial of the action there was evidence showing that when Gillman & Rankin read to Rebecca Wright the question of William Wright's occupation she stated to them he was an employe of a railroad company at Lexington, and working in its yards; but nevertheless one of the agents directed the other to write as her answer the word "laborer," saying it would cover all, and it was accordingly so written, and now appears in the application. That evidence was, however, contradicted by witness for appellee; and thus the main issue of fact was made and submitted to the jury by the following and only instruction given: "The jury should find for the defendant, unless the jury find from the evidence that the defendant company, at the time of the delivery of the policy, or find that the defendant company's general agents, Robinson & Owens, or either of them, at the time of the delivery of the policy in the proof described, knew or had information that the decedent, Wright, was engaged in switching or coupling or uncoupling cars in the railroad yards, in which case the jury should find for the plaintiff in the sum of $3,000." The purpose of requiring answers to the numerous and comprehensive questions contained in an application for a policy...