Headen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

173 S.E. 349, 206 N.C. 270, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 161
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedMarch 21, 1934
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 173 S.E. 349 (Headen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Headen v. Metropolitan Life Insurance, 173 S.E. 349, 206 N.C. 270, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 161 (N.C. 1934).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

Manifestly, if the insured were not in sound health at the time of the issuance of the policy, or if within two years prior thereto, she had been attended by a physician for any serious disease, or before said date, had had any disease of the heart, liver or kidneys, she is not entitled to recover according to the express terms of the con *272 tract of insurance. Gilmore v. Ins. Co., 199 N. C., 632, 155 S. E., 566. But it is provided by N. C. Code, 6460, that when a policy of life insurance, not to exceed $5,000 in amount, has been issued without medical examination of the insured “the policy shall not be rendered void nor shall payment he resisted on account of any misrepresentation as to the physical condition of the applicant, except in cases of fraud.” The provisions of this statute, being in force at the time of the execution of the policy, entered into and became a part of the convention of the parties as much so as if they had been expressly incorporated in its terms. Bateman v. Srerrett, 201 N. C., 59, 159 S. E., 14; Trust Co. v. Hudson, 200 N. C., 688, 158 S. E., 244; House v. Parker, 181 N. C., 40, 106 S. E., 136; Mfg. Co. v. Holladay, 178 N. C., 417, 100 S. E., 567. Therefore, the defendant may not now declare the policy in suit void, pursuant to the stipulation of the contract, as this is in direct conflict with the statute, and the chance which the agent said he was going to take, precludes the defense set up, except in cases of fraud. Holbrook v. Ins. Co., 196 N. C., 333, 145 S. E., 609; McNeal v. Ins. Co., 192 N. C., 450, 135 S. E., 300. Fraud is neither pleaded in the answer nor suggested in the evidence.

There was no error in directing a verdict for the plaintiff, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Related

Hyde Insurance Agency, Inc. v. Dixie Leasing Corp.
215 S.E.2d 162 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)
Howell v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
74 S.E.2d 610 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
Thompson v. . Scott, Comr. of Agriculture
26 S.E.2d 902 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
Motsinger v. Perryman
218 N.C. 15 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Bryson City Bank v. Town of Bryson
213 N.C. 165 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Bank v. . Bryson City
195 S.E. 398 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1938)
Pugh v. Prudential Insurance
193 S.E. 278 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Nash v. Board of Commissioners
190 S.E. 475 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1937)
Eckard v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
185 S.E. 671 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)
Fuller v. . Lockhart
182 S.E. 733 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1935)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
173 S.E. 349, 206 N.C. 270, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/headen-v-metropolitan-life-insurance-nc-1934.