Pugh v. Prudential Insurance

193 S.E. 278, 212 N.C. 372, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 320

Opinion

Stagy, C. J.

It is freely conceded by tbe defendant that as tbe policy in suit does not exceed $5,000 and was issued without medical examination of tbe insured, it can take no advantage of “any misrepresentation as to tbe physical condition of tbe applicant,” in tbe absence of fraud. C. S., 6460; Eckard v. Ins. Co., 210 N. C., 130, 185 S. E., 671; Headen v. Ins. Co., 206 N. C., 270, 173 S. E., 349; Potts v. Ins. Co., 206 N. C., 257, 174 S. E., 123; Holbrook v. Ins. Co., 196 N. C., 333, 145 S. E., 609.

Tbe position of tbe defendant is that tbe policy is void because of representations, falsely made, which do not relate to tbe physical condition of tbe applicant, but which were material to tbe risk, to wit, tbe one pertaining to tbe attendance of a physician, and tbe other to tbe amount of time lost from work through illness during tbe last three years. Inman v. Woodmen of the World, 211 N. C., 179, 189 S. E., 496; Potts v. Ins. Co., supra. Compare Anthony v. Protective Union, 206 N. C., 7, 173 S. E., 6.

Without making definite ruling as to whether tbe representations in question relate directly or indirectly to tbe physical condition of tbe applicant, we think it proper to bold that as they were “declarations in lieu of medical examination,” made at tbe instance of tbe defendant, they should be regarded as coming within the purview of C. S., 6460.

In this view of tbe case it follows that tbe verdict and judgment should be upheld, which will accordingly be done.

No error.