North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kerly

Supreme Court of Alabama

North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kerly

109 So. 755, 215 Ala. 100, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 326

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama

DecidedOctober 14, 1926

Docket7. Div. 608.

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 109 So. 755 (North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kerly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

North Carolina Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Kerly, 109 So. 755, 215 Ala. 100, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 326 (Ala. 1926).

Pincite

Opinion

SAYRE, J.

Action on a policy of life insurance. In several pleas defendant set up a breach of a condition of the policy to this effect, in general, that insured was in good health at the time of its delivery. To this defense plaintiff replied that defendant *101 retained the first premium paid on the policy and delivered said policy with full knowledge of the fact pleaded by way of defense. This, on its face, was a good replication. But in proof of it plaintiff could only adduce evidence tending to show that defendant’s local agent had knowledge of the fact that the insured was not in good health at the time of the delivery of the' policy. The policy provided, and the agreement was, that:

“Inasmuch as only the officers at the home office of the company in the city of Durham have [had] authority to determine whether or not a policy shall issue upon this application [which became a part of the policy], and as they act on the written statements, answers and agreements herein made, 'no statements, promises, or information made or given by or to the person soliciting or taking this application for a policy, or by or to any other person, shall be binding on the company or in any manner affect its rights, unless such statements, promises or information be reduced to writing and presented to the officers of the company at the home office.”

Defendant’s hgent — to state the substance of his testimony on this point — denied that he had information at the time of the delivery of the policy that insured had been sick since her application, or that she was then, at the time of delivery, sick. By its instructions to the jury, duly excepted to, the court would have permitted — required—defendant to he bound by the information of its local agent, not communicated in any manner to its officers in Durham. This, on the authority of Powell v. Prudential Ins. Co., 153 Ala. 611, 45 So. 208, was error, and must result in a reversal of the judgment.

We find no error in the rulings on questions of evidence.

Reversed and remanded.

GARDNER, MILLER, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

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

SAYRE, J.

Action on a policy of life insurance. In several pleas defendant set up a breach of a condition of the policy to this effect, in general, that insured was in good health at the time of its delivery. To this defense plaintiff replied that defendant *101 retained the first premium paid on the policy and delivered said policy with full knowledge of the fact pleaded by way of defense. This, on its face, was a good replication. But in proof of it plaintiff could only adduce evidence tending to show that defendant’s local agent had knowledge of the fact that the insured was not in good health at the time of the delivery of the' policy. The policy provided, and the agreement was, that:

“Inasmuch as only the officers at the home office of the company in the city of Durham have [had] authority to determine whether or not a policy shall issue upon this application [which became a part of the policy], and as they act on the written statements, answers and agreements herein made, 'no statements, promises, or information made or given by or to the person soliciting or taking this application for a policy, or by or to any other person, shall be binding on the company or in any manner affect its rights, unless such statements, promises or information be reduced to writing and presented to the officers of the company at the home office.”

Defendant’s hgent — to state the substance of his testimony on this point — denied that he had information at the time of the delivery of the policy that insured had been sick since her application, or that she was then, at the time of delivery, sick. By its instructions to the jury, duly excepted to, the court would have permitted — required—defendant to he bound by the information of its local agent, not communicated in any manner to its officers in Durham. This, on the authority of Powell v. Prudential Ins. Co., 153 Ala. 611, 45 So. 208, was error, and must result in a reversal of the judgment.

We find no error in the rulings on questions of evidence.

Reversed and remanded.

GARDNER, MILLER, and BOULDIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 So. 755, 215 Ala. 100, 1926 Ala. LEXIS 326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/north-carolina-mut-life-ins-co-v-kerly-ala-1926.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack