Wright v. Mut. Ben. Life Ass'n of America

• Decision Date: 14 January 1890
• Citation: 118 N.Y. 237,23 N.E. 186
• Parties: WRIGHT v. MUTUAL BEN. LIFE ASS'N OF AMERICA.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

118 N.Y. 237

23 N.E. 186

WRIGHT

v.MUTUAL BEN. LIFE ASS'N OF AMERICA.¹

Court of Appeals of New York, Second Division.

Jan. 14, 1890.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the general term of the fourth department affirming a judgment entered upon a verdict directed for the plaintiff at special term in Oswego county. The action is upon a certificate of life insurance or policy, dated December 6, 1883, and issued by the appellant upon the life of Charles F. Wright. The certificate was payable to Byron D. Houghton, and was for the sum of $5,000. The assured died June 4, 1885. In December, 1885, or January, 1886, Houghton assigned his interest in the certificate to Catherine Wright by written assignment. Catherine Wright was the wife of the deceased, Charles F. Wright. Houghton paid all dues and assessments from the first, either directly or by advancing the necessary amounts, and charging them to said Charles F. Wright. The application upon which the certificate was issued contained an agreement on the part of the applicant ‘that if any misrepresentation or fraudulent or untrue answer or statement has been made, or if any fact which should have been stated to the association be suppressed,’ the agreement of assurance should be null and void. The applicant warranted the truth of the statements in his application. Houghton stated in his proof of loss that at the time of his death the deceased owed him $2,823.02, and the proof in the case shows that a considerable portion of that indebtedness existed at the time of the issuance of the policy, and increased until it reached the above amount. The defendant alleged in the answer that false and untrue statements were made by Wright in his application with a view to influence the action of the defendant in granting the application; also that Wright and Houghton both knew the falsity of the statements, that the defendant was cheated and misled thereby, and that Wright and Houghton knew that if the truth in regard to the health and habits of the applicant had been stated the application for insurance would have been denied. On the trial the defendant offered evidence to show that the certificate was obtained by fraud of Houghton and Wright for a speculative purpose on the part of Wright, which was excluded, and defendant excepted. Thereupon the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff for $5,200 damages, for which, including costs, judgment was entered.

G. H. Crawford, for appellant.

Francis E. Hamilton, for respondent.

POTTER, J., ( after stating the facts as above.)

This is an action to recover of the defendant the amount it agreed to pay under a policy or certificate insuring the life of Charles F. Wright. Upon the trial, after the plaintiff had introduced the necessary proofs to entitle her to a recovery, the defendant offered to prove as a defense to the action that the deceased, Charles F. Wright, and Byron D. Houghton, the beneficiary named in the policy, for the purpose of obtaining the policy and of defrauding the defendant, falsely represented to the defendant that Wright, the insured, was not then suffering, and never had been suffering, from certain diseases which had seriously impaired his health, for the purpose of inducing and by means whereof defendant was induced to issue the policy insuring the life of said Wright, and that such representations were false, etc. This evidence was objected to by the plaintiff, that such proof was inadmissible under the provision of the policy that ‘no question as to the validity of an application or certificate of membership shall be raised unless such question be raised within the first two years from and after the date of such certificate of membership, and during the life of the member therein named;’ and the objection was sustained, and defendant excepted. The defendant also offered to show that the beneficiary, Houghton, had no insurable interest in the life of the insured; in short, that it was a speculative and fraudulent scheme, devised and practiced by Houghton to secure an advantage to himself upon the life of Wright, which must soon terminate from the diseases he was then afflicted with. This was also objected to by the plaintiff, and excluded by the court, and defendant excepted; the court holding that the defendant could not show any such thing, unless during the life of the assured, or during the period of two years from the date of the policy, such question had been raised.

These rulings present the main question upon this appeal, and, inasmuch as I have reached the conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed, there is but little, if any, occasion to add anything to the reasons contained in the opinion of the general term affirming the judgment of the trial court in this case. 43 Hun, 61. There does not seem to be room for any doubt in relation to the meaning of the stipulation referred to. The defendant's counsel does not contend that the language of the stipulation or waiver is not plain and comprehensive of everything...