Home/Supreme Court of Virginia/Elliott v. Interstate Life & Accident Insurance Co.

Elliott v. Interstate Life & Accident Insurance Co.

176 S.E.2d 314, 211 Va. 240, 1970 Va. LEXIS 240
CourtSupreme Court of Virginia
DecidedSeptember 4, 1970
DocketRecord 7172
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 176 S.E.2d 314 (Elliott v. Interstate Life & Accident Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Elliott v. Interstate Life & Accident Insurance Co., 176 S.E.2d 314, 211 Va. 240, 1970 Va. LEXIS 240 (Va. 1970).

Opinion

Harman, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

*241 Plaintiff, Nellie Maxey Elliott, instituted her action below by motion for judgment alleging that defendant, Interstate Life and Accident Insurance Company, contracted, on June 16, 1967, with Alvah Phillip Elliott, plaintiff’s husband, to insure his life for the sum of $12,000, that she was the beneficiary named in said contract, that Alvah Phillip Elliott died on July 20, 1967, at a time when such contract was in full force and effect. Defendant, in its answer, denied the existence of such a contract of insurance.

At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the court below sustained a motion to strike the evidence and entered summary judgment for the defendant. To review this ruling we granted a writ of error to plaintiff.

Under well established rules we must, in these circumstances, view the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff.

Mr. and Mrs. Elliott had purchased a home in October, 1964. After some discussion of the matter from time to time, they decided to purchase an insurance policy on his life so that the proceeds would pay off any indebtedness against their home in the event of Mr. Elliott’s death.

Mr. Elliott had a “family plan” life insurance policy with defendant and the Elliotts had become acquainted with John L. Hamner, defendant’s agent, who regularly collected the premiums on that policy.

Mrs. Elliott made an appointment with Hamner to discuss “mortgage” insurance and on June 13, 1967, Hamner and Carl Claybrook, Staff Manager in defendant’s Lynchburg office, met with the Elliotts at their residence.

At this meeting an application for insurance was prepared by Claybrook and signed by Mr. Elliott for a 15-year term life insurance policy for $12,000 designating the plaintiff as primary beneficiary. This application reads, in part, as follows:

“It is understood and agreed that: (1) there shall be no liability hereunder until a policy is issued to and received by me and the first premium actually paid during the lifetime of all the Proposed Insureds and their continued good health except as provided in the receipt bearing the same serial number as this application; (2) no agent or other person, except an authorized officer of the Company, has the power to make or to modify any contract on behalf of the Company; (3) all the statements contained in Parts I and II hereof are complete and true and all such state *242 ments shall form the basis for and be a part of the policy for which application is hereby made;. . .”

The serially numbered receipt referred to in the application contains the following provision:

“. . . The insurance under the policy for which application is made shall be effective on the date that a satisfactory Part II of the application is furnished to the Company or on the date of completion of the medical examination (if and when required by the Company), whichever is the later date, if in the opinion of the authorized Officers of the Company at its Home Office in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the persons proposed for insurance are insurable and acceptable for insurance under the rules and practices on the plan of insurance, for the amount of insurance, and at the premium rate set forth in the application.”

In the discussions both Hamner and Claybrook indicated to the Elliotts that they did not believe that a medical examination would be required for the policy to be issued. Mr. Elliott did not have the funds available to pay the initial premium so it was agreed that the application would be processed and that Hamner would return to the Elliott home on Friday, June 16, to collect the initial premium of $19.10.

Hamner returned to plaintiff’s home on Friday and collected the initial premium. Since the serially numbered receipt was attached to the application which had already been mailed to defendant’s home office, he issued a “field receipt” on a form provided by defendant. 1 He advised Mrs. Elliott at that time that a medical examination would be required before a policy would be issued but, since the premium had been paid, the coverage was in effect and would remain in effect unless the medical examination was not acceptable to the defendant, in which case the coverage would be cancelled by defendant.

_ Mr. Elliott was examined on June 19 by Dr. Pisano, a local physician employed to conduct such examinations for defendant. His medical report and a urine specimen were forwarded to Dr. John E. Collier, defendant’s Medical Director, who received them on June 22.

The result of the analysis of this specimen was unsatisfactory because it showed traces of sugar. Dr. Collier then requested Dr. Pisano *244 to obtain two additional urine samples to be taken on successive days. These were not received by Dr. Collier until July 20.

*243

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mary Grace Condon v. Inter-State Assurance Company
850 F.2d 688 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)
Equitable Variable Life Insurance v. Wood
362 S.E.2d 741 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1987)
Lundquist v. Fox
624 P.2d 667 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1981)
Virginia Connelly v. The Prudential Insurance Company
610 F.2d 1215 (Fourth Circuit, 1979)
Collister v. Nationwide Life Insurance
388 A.2d 1346 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1978)
Gregg v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins.
330 N.E.2d 913 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1975)
Evers v. STANDARD SECURITY LIFE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK
345 F. Supp. 1162 (W.D. Virginia, 1972)
Farthing v. Home Beneficial Life Ins.
18 Va. Cir. 517 (Richmond City Circuit Court, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 S.E.2d 314, 211 Va. 240, 1970 Va. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elliott-v-interstate-life-accident-insurance-co-va-1970.