37 Ga. App. 678 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1928
Mrs. Stella James brought suit against Metropolitan Life Insurance Company upon a policy of insurance issued upon the life of her husband, Benjamin A. James, in which she was named as beneficiary. The defendant defended the suit upon the grounds of fraud and material misrepresentations in the application for insurance. The verdict was in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant excepted to the refusal of a new trial. The application was in parts A and B, and was attached to the policy as a part of the contract. In part A were the following stipulations:
“1. That the foregoing statements and answers are correct and wholly true, and, together with the answers to questions on part B hereof, they shall form the basis of the contract of insurance, if one be issued.
“2. That no agent, medical examiner, or any other person, except the officers of the company, have power on behalf of the company: (a) to make, modify, or discharge any contract of insurance; (b) to bind the company by making any promises respecting any benefits under any policy issued hereunder.
“3. That no statement made to or by, and no knowledge on the part of, any agent, medical examiner, or any other person as to any facts pertaining to the applicant shall be considered as having been made to or brought to the knowledge of the company, unless stated in either part A or B of this application.”
The policy contained the' following provision: “This policy and the application therefor constitutes the entire contract between the parties, and all statements made by the insured, in the
Parts A and B of the application both purported to have been signed b,y the insured. Part B contained, among others, the following questions and answers:
“6. Present condition of health? Good.
“7. (a) When last sick? March, 1920. (b) Nature of last
sickness? Influenza, (c) How long sick? 15 days.
“9. Any physical or mental defect or infirmity? If yes, give the particulars. No.
“18. Have you been attended by a physician during the last five years? If yes, give name of complaint, dates, how long sick, and names of physicians. No.
“19. Have you had any treatment within the last five years at any dispensary, hospital, or sanatarium? If yes, give date, duration, name of ailment, and name of institution. No.”
The policy was dated March 3 and delivered March 6, and the insured died on April 16, 1926.-
The evidence on the trial established that, although the insured had answered that his last sickness was .in March, 1920, that he had not been attended by any physician during the past five years, and that he had no treatment during this period at any dispensary, hospital, or sanatarium, the truth was that within less than twelve months prior to the application he had been attended by physicians, and had spent several days in the Atlantic Coast Line Hospital at Waycross, where he was treated for high blood pressure. It appears that he was advised to go to the hospital at the particular time by one Dr. Clay, to whom he had applied for additional benefits in the nature of insurance in the relief department of the Atlantic Coast Line Bailroad Company. Dr. Clay testified in part as follows: “As a physician I have not attended Benjamin A. James within five years prior to the 24th of February, 1926. He came to me for physical examination, August 31, 1925. At that time I found him suffering with high blood pressure, the exact points I do not recall, but something over 200, and advised him that it would be impossible to accept his application for addi
Dr. Williams testified: “I am a physician and have been a physician in Savannah for eighteen years. Benjamin A. James was not treated by me within five years. I examined him and advised him to be treated. It was February 20, 1926. That was when I first examined him. The date of my examination was February 20, 1926. He was complaining of headache and high
According to the evidence of Dr. McCullough, he treated the insured for twelve days in September, 1925, for arterial hypertension, and this was a contributory or secondary cause of his death in the following April, the immediate cause being cerebral hemorrhage. As shown by the other evidence, it was during this period that the insured was at the railroad hospital. The plaintiff herself testified that her husband, the insured, was at the hospital for about fifteen days, ■ under treatment for high blood pressure, and verified the fact that he went there with the expectation of so improving his condition that he might procure insurance, or additional benefits, in the railroad relief department, for which he applied to Dr. Clay. The plaintiff further testified that when the company’s agent delivered the policy she told him that she was “glad to get it, because Dr. Clay thought he [the insured] had high blood pressure.” None of the above testimony was contradicted, and there was no issue as to the credibility of any of the witnesses.
Hnder the evidence as stated, a verdict in favor of the defendant was demanded as a matter of law, and the court should have granted a new trial upon the general grounds of the motion. Counsel for the plaintiff, the defendant in error, argue that, upon an inspection of the insured’s admittedly genuine signature on part A of the application and the handwriting of the medical examiner, Dr. Eedmond, in part B, the jury were authorized to find that what purported to be the signature of the insured to part B was not in the handwriting of the insured, but was in the handwriting of Dr. Éedmond. It is thus contended that the evi
Where, in conformity with the requirements of section 2471 of the Civil Code (1910), the application is attached to the policy and by the terms of the contract is made a part thereof, and where the authority of the medical examiner is limited, as in the contract before us, the beneficiary, in suing upon the policy, can not impeach the application as thus integrated therein. If the application falls, so does the policy, and in founding her action upon the policy she is committed to the proposition that the answers were made by the insured as set forth in the application. This rule is not changed by the fact that the plaintiff fails to include the application in the copy of the policy attached as an exhibit to the suit. Wilkins v. National Life Ins. Co., 23 Ga. App. 191 (2, c) (97 S. E. 879); Travelers Protective Asso. v. Belote, 21 Ga. App. 610 (3) (94 S. E. 834); Puckett v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 32 Ga. App. 263 (122 S. E. 791).
On all other questions this case is a counterpart of Jefferson Standard Life Insurance Co. v. Henderson, post, 704, and what we have said in that case will apply equally to this ease. The verdict in favor of the' plaintiff was unauthorized. As this ruling appears to be controlling, we omit any reference to the special grounds of the motion for a new trial.
Judgment reversed.