Estate of Diggs v. Enterprise Life Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Texas

Estate of Diggs v. Enterprise Life Insurance Co.

657 S.W.2d 813

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas

DecidedJanuary 1, 1983

Docket01-82-0402-CV

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 657 S.W.2d 813 (Estate of Diggs v. Enterprise Life Insurance Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Estate of Diggs v. Enterprise Life Insurance Co., 657 S.W.2d 813 (Tex. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

WARREN, Justice.

In its motion for rehearing appellant calls our attention to the opinion on rehearing in Lee v. The National Life Assurance Company of Canada, 635 F.2d 516, 517 (5th Cir.) where it withdrew its language used in its original opinion which stated that “intent to deceive or induce issuance of an insurance policy can never be proved as a matter of law to establish the misrepresentation defense in the absence of a warranty that the facts contained in the application are true or evidence of collusion between the applicant and the insurance agent.” 632 F.2d at 517 (5th Cir.).

Although we cited the language in our original opinion, 646 S.W.2d 573, our holding on the issue of intent to deceive was as follows: “We are of the opinion that we may not presume an intent to deceive from the fact that Mr. Diggs, with a long history of heart ailments, made false statements on his application for insurance.”

We do not hold that a summary judgment may never be obtained in a life insurance dispute on the basis of an insurance company’s affirmative defense of material misrepresentation, as appellant contends. We do hold that the evidence presented and the allowable presumptions were insufficient in this case to prove as a matter of law that the deceased made application for insurance with intent to deceive.

Appellee’s motion for rehearing is denied.

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

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

WARREN, Justice.

In its motion for rehearing appellant calls our attention to the opinion on rehearing in Lee v. The National Life Assurance Company of Canada, 635 F.2d 516, 517 (5th Cir.) where it withdrew its language used in its original opinion which stated that “intent to deceive or induce issuance of an insurance policy can never be proved as a matter of law to establish the misrepresentation defense in the absence of a warranty that the facts contained in the application are true or evidence of collusion between the applicant and the insurance agent.” 632 F.2d at 517 (5th Cir.).

Although we cited the language in our original opinion, 646 S.W.2d 573, our holding on the issue of intent to deceive was as follows: “We are of the opinion that we may not presume an intent to deceive from the fact that Mr. Diggs, with a long history of heart ailments, made false statements on his application for insurance.”

We do not hold that a summary judgment may never be obtained in a life insurance dispute on the basis of an insurance company’s affirmative defense of material misrepresentation, as appellant contends. We do hold that the evidence presented and the allowable presumptions were insufficient in this case to prove as a matter of law that the deceased made application for insurance with intent to deceive.

Appellee’s motion for rehearing is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

657 S.W.2d 813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-diggs-v-enterprise-life-insurance-co-texapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack