Gallant v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

44 N.E. 1073, 167 Mass. 79, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 29
CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
DecidedOctober 23, 1896
DocketOctober 23, 1896
StatusPublished
Cited by28 cases

This text of 44 N.E. 1073 (Gallant v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gallant v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 44 N.E. 1073, 167 Mass. 79, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 29 (Mass. 1896).

Opinion

Field, C. J.

The policy, which is dated February 11, 1895, contained a proviso as follows: “ Provided, however, that no obligation is assumed by this company prior to the date hereof, nor unless on said date the insured is alive and in sound health.” An examining physician employed by the defendant company examined the insured on January 30, 1895, and on the 4th of the next February returned to the company a certificate that he found the insured to be in sound health. The defendant, against the objection of the plaintiff, was permitted to introduce the testimony of one Dr. Booth, to the effect “ that he had attended the insured in 1893 for the grip ; that he had seen the insured in 1894, but had not been called to attend her'in that year; and that he had attended her in her last sickness in May, 1895 ; that in his opinion she was not in sound health when she was insured, in February, 1895.” The plaintiff “ asked the court to rule that the defendant company was bound by the examination made and reported by its agent, the examining physician,” which the court refused to do, and the plaintiff excepted. There seems to have been no objection that Dr. Booth was not shown at the trial to be qualified to give the opinion he gave, or that he did not use the words in the same sense as they were used.in the policy, but the sole contention is that the company was bound by the report of the examining physician whom it employed. The report relates to January 30,1895, and the policy to February 11, 1895, and it is possible that the insured may have been in good health at the former time and not at the latter. But, apart from this, the examining physician was only the agent of the defendant to make the examination and report the result of it. He had no authority to make a contract of insurance for the company in which the results of his examination should be conclusively taken by the company to be true. The company made its own [81]*81contract, a part of which was that no obligation was assumed by the company unless at the time when the policy was issued the insured was “ alive and in sound health.” If in fact the insured at that time was not in sound health, the defendant is not liable on the policy, and this fact can be shown by any competent evidence. Vose v. Eagle Ins. Co. 6 Cush. 42. McCoy v. Metropolitan Ins. Co. 133 Mass. 82. Exceptions overruled.

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

Related

Hills v. Savings Bank Life Insurance
22 Mass. L. Rptr. 672 (Massachusetts Superior Court, 2007)
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Devore
424 P.2d 321 (California Supreme Court, 1967)
Combs v. Equitable Life Ins. Co. of Iowa
120 F.2d 432 (Fourth Circuit, 1941)
Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Burno
33 N.E.2d 519 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1941)
Carduff v. Boston Mutual Life Insurance
1 Mass. App. Div. 580 (Mass. Dist. Ct., App. Div., 1936)
Schiller v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
3 N.E.2d 384 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1936)
Eklund v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
57 P.2d 362 (Utah Supreme Court, 1936)
Prudential Insurance Co. of America v. Kudoba
186 A. 793 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1936)
Lopardi v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
289 Mass. 492 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1935)
Chorney v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
172 A. 392 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1934)
American Nat. Ins. v. McKellar
295 S.W. 628 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1927)
American National Insurance v. Hale
291 S.W. 82 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1927)
National Life Accident Ins. Co. v. Winbush
110 So. 571 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1926)
Keeton v. Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co.
5 F.2d 183 (Fourth Circuit, 1925)
Myers v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance
108 Ohio St. (N.S.) 175 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1923)
Wright v. Federal Life Ins.
248 S.W. 325 (Texas Commission of Appeals, 1923)
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Benedict
17 Ohio App. 201 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1923)
Carlson v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
221 Ill. App. 354 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1921)
Federal Life Ins. Co. v. Wright
230 S.W. 795 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1921)
Logan v. New York Life Insurance
181 P. 906 (Washington Supreme Court, 1919)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
44 N.E. 1073, 167 Mass. 79, 1896 Mass. LEXIS 29, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gallant-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-mass-1896.