149 N.Y.S. 345 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1914
There is substantially no dispute of fact in this case. The question is one of law. We think that defendant’s motion to direct a verdict in its favor, made at the close of the entire case, should have been granted.
The question for us is, was this certificate of December 8, 1911, upon which deceased obtained reinstatement of the contract of insurance with defendant, and which is concededly false, also fraudulent; that is, was it false to the knowledge of insured and made with intent to deceive? The evidence permits of but one answer. The inferences to be drawn therefrom allow but one conclusion. There is no other possible explanation thereof except that insured intentionally sought to mislead defendant, disarm suspicion and, if possible, procure
Jeeks, P. J., Thomas, Rich and Stapleton, JJ., concurred.
Judgment and order reversed, and judgment directed in favor of defendant dismissing the complaint, with costs of the action and of this appeal.
See Ins. Law (Consol. Laws, chap. 28; Laws of 1909, chap. 33), § 92.— [Rep.