Getsinger v. Union Mutual Life Insurance

247 N.W. 260, 216 Iowa 610
Supreme Court of Iowa·Decided March 7, 1933·No. No. 41642.·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Evans, J.

The defendant submits its appeal upon the sole question as to whether its motion for a directed verdict should have been sustained. It does not ask a review of mere errors, if any, committed upon the trial. Its contention is that the evidence of *611 fraudulent representations is conclusive, and that the trial court erred in overruling its motion for a directed verdict.

The defendant is a life insurance company with its principal office in the city of Des Moines. It solicits its business by mail and not through the personal efforts of agents. The insured in this case was T. R. Getsinger, a bank cashier, in Johnson City, Tenn. The method of approach to a “prospect” adopted by the defendant has in it some degree of indirection. In some manner, not disclosed in the record, the defendant obtained the name of the insured as a prospect. It mailed to him a postal card, the face of which was covered with typewritten matter with certain blank spaces left therein. It requested the insured to fill in the blank spaces and to sign the card as a whole and return the same. The following is a photostatic copy of the face of the card after the blank spaces had been filled by the insured:

*612

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

Getsinger v. Union Mutual Life Insurance, 247 N.W. 260, 216 Iowa 610 (iowa 1933).

247 N.W. 260 (Getsinger v. Union Mutual Life Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

De Smet Farm Mutual Insurance Co. of South Dakota v. Busskohl
2013 SD 52 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 2013)
Service Life Insurance v. McCullough
13 N.W.2d 440 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)