Gabriles v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada

27 S.E.2d 111, 70 Ga. App. 6, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 216
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedSeptember 29, 1943
Docket30170.
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 27 S.E.2d 111 (Gabriles v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gabriles v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada, 27 S.E.2d 111, 70 Ga. App. 6, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 216 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Opinion

Broyles, C. J.

On the trial the undisputed evidence showed that the insured was a regular patient of Dr. Rufus Dorsey during the years 1936 and 1937, and that Dr. Dorsey gave her digitalis and nitroglycerin as heart stimulants. The following evidence also was undisputed: On January 12, 1937, Dr. Jeff L. Richardson examined the insured with an electrocardiogram, an instrument used in diagnosis of heart disease, and found that she had a coronary disease. Dr. Newdicate Owensby treated the insured for two years before her death, and found she had high-blood pressure and some organic heart disturbance. Dr. William F. Lake, in March, 1934, made an x-ray picture of the heart, chest, and lungs of the insured. The above-stated evidence was undisputed. Further, the uncontradicted evidence was that in issuing the policy the defendant relied upon the representations made by the insured in the application. 1

In our opinion, the foregoing undisputed evidence demanded a finding that the insured made several material misrepresentations in her answers to the questions propounded in her application for the policy. The misrepresentations were material in that they, changed the nature, extent, and character of the risk. Whether misrepresentations are material is ordinarily a question for the jury; but where, as here, the evidence excludes every reasonable inference except that they were material, no issue is presented upon that point for determination by the jury, and it is not necessary for the insurance company to show actual moral fraud on the part of the insured. Jefferson Standard Life &c. Insurance Co. v. Henderson, 37 Ga. App. 704 (141 S. E. 498); National Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. Preston, 68 Ga. App. 614, 616 (23 S. E. 2d, 526).

The court did not err in directing the verdict for the defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

MacIntyre •and Gardner, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Perry
174 S.E.2d 570 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1970)
Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. McCranie
178 F.2d 745 (Fifth Circuit, 1949)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
27 S.E.2d 111, 70 Ga. App. 6, 1943 Ga. App. LEXIS 216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gabriles-v-sun-life-assurance-company-of-canada-gactapp-1943.