State Ex Rel. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Allen

276 S.W. 877, 310 Mo. 378, 1925 Mo. LEXIS 588
CourtSupreme Court of Missouri
DecidedOctober 6, 1925
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 276 S.W. 877 (State Ex Rel. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Allen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. Metropolitan Life Insurance v. Allen, 276 S.W. 877, 310 Mo. 378, 1925 Mo. LEXIS 588 (Mo. 1925).

Opinion

*380 WALKER, P. J.

This is an application in certiorari asking this court .to quash the record of the St. Llouis Court of Appeals in the case of Hattie Simpson, plaintiff, v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, defendant, in which, after a trial to a jury, a judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant on an insurance policy issued by the defendant on the life of the plaintiff’s husband. This judgment was reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals. The validity of the Court of Appeals’ ruling is assailed on the ground of an alleged conflict of same with decisions of the Supreme Court.

The limitations of our right of review in cases of this character are either ignored or are misunderstood by the relator. As we have repeatedly said, our' jurisdiction in certiorari, so far as concerns the rulings of the Courts of Appeals, extends under the plain terms of the Constitution, only to cases in which conflicts of opinions are alleged to exist between the rulings of the Courts of Appeals and those of this court. It is futile, therefore, to cite in support of an application for this writ the rulings of the Courts of Appeals or those of other *381 jurisdictions or our own statutes, unless the latter have been construed by a Court of Appeals contrary to the construction given to them by the Supreme Court.

The grounds of conflict in the case at bar stated generally, consist of a ruling of the Court of Appeals concerning the nature and effect of misrepresentations alleged to have been made by the applicant for insurance and the manner in which the same should be pleaded. The answer of the defendant, as set forth in the Court of Appeals opinion, so far as the same pleads misrepresentations, is that the insured, in reply to inquiries propounded to him, by the medical examiner, stated that he was in sound health; that he had not been suffering from the disease of diabetes,; that he had not been attended by a physician and had not been under the case of any physician within two years before the date of said application; that he had not been under treatment in any dispensary or hospital or an inmate of any institution; that he had never met with any serious personal injury, nor had he ever been seriously ill; that the defendant, relying upon the truthfulness of said statements and believing the same to be true and correct, issued its policy of insurance whereby it insured the applicant for the amount stated therein in favor of the plaintiff; that said policy was obtained by misrepresentations which were material in that the applicant at the time he was examined and made said statements was then suffering from diabetes and had so suffered for a long time prior thereto; that he had been under the care of a physician and was not in sound health on the date of said application; that had the defendant been aware of the falsity of said statements and answers made by the applicant to the medical examiner, it would not have issued its policy of insurance as aforesaid; that the death of the insured was caused by the disease of diabetes from which he was suffering when he made the application for the policy.

The Court of Appeals held “that the answer contained no averment concerning the misrepresentations of *382 the insured, other than that they were untrue; that it is not alleged that these untrue answers were wilfully made .by the insured for the purpose of defrauding the company, either in the words above stated, or in equivalent language; that the word ‘fraud’ is not used, nor any words charging the same. In short, that the answer is defective, although it states that the representations made were in regard to a material matter, in not averring that the statements were wilfully and knowingly made for a fraudulent or a corrupt motive by the insured; and the respondent — the relator here — does not seek to avoid this difficulty by asking the Court of Appeals to construe the answer with favorable intendments to comprehend such an allegation; that the defense is that under the statute (Sec. 6142, R. S. 1919) it does not matter whether the false representations were made in bad faith or for the purpose of deceiving the insurer if they relate to a material matter touching the risk; that under the terms of the policy a distinction is drawn between innocent and fraudulent representations, in that it provides, in the absence of fraud, that the statements of the insured shall be deemed representations and not warranties and that no such statement shall avoid the policy, unless it is contained in the written application therefor; that warranties with the exceptions provided are abolished by this policy.”- Thus reasoning the Court of Appeals held that the answer pleaded no dedefense.

Section 6142, supra, is as follows: “No misrepresentation made in obtaining or securing a policy of insurance on the life or lives of any person or persons, citizens of this State, shall be deemed material, or render the policy void, unless the matter misrepresented shall have actually contributed to the contingency or event on which the policy is to become due and payable, and whether it so contributed in any case shall be a question for the jury.”

*383 I. Measured by our own rulings, did the answer state a defense~ In the determination of this question we need not cavil concerning the technical question as to whether, under our rules of pleading, the answer contains all of the essential averments neces~ sary to a defensive plea of fraud; it does aver that the representations by the insured were false and that they contributed to the issuance of the policy that they were material; that their truth was believed in and relied npon by the company in entering into the contract with the insnred; that it wonid not have issued the policy had it known the real facts in regard to the condition of the health of the insured at the time.

Despite the diffioulty encountered in defining fraud it will suffice for the facts under review, to say that it is an intentional perversion of the truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with something of value; or what is more to the point a false representation of a matter of fact which deceives or is intended to deceive another to his legal injury. [State ex rel. Williams v. Purl, 228 Mo. l. c. 22.] In pleading fraud, whether affirmatively or defensively, it is not necessary that the term fraud be used if facts are averred which show it to be a conclusion of law. 9 he prime requisite of the pleading is that it state specific facts which constitute the false representations. [Bradbury v. Smith, 181 S. W. (Mo.) l. c. 423; Smith v. Sims, 77 Mo. 269.] Whether, therefore, the false statements of the insured be regarded as an actual fraud, made with the intention of deceiving the medical examiner; or a legal fraud, which consists of a misstatement of a matter within the personal knowledge of the insured or of such a character that the insurer must have regarded it as within the personal knowledge of the former, it constitutes, whether it be one or other, such a false representation as should be held to avoid the policy.

The opinion in Kern v. Legion of Honor, 167 Mo. 471, and other cases cited by the Court of Appeals, hold no more as to the re4uirements of a. pleading of the *384

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

Related

Toler v. Missouri Ins. Co.
243 S.W.2d 788 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1951)
Ashton v. Buchholz
221 S.W.2d 496 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1949)
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Calhoun
114 F.2d 526 (Eighth Circuit, 1940)
Houston v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
97 S.W.2d 856 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1936)
Kirk v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
81 S.W.2d 333 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1935)
Finley v. Williams
29 S.W.2d 103 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1930)
Wendel v. City Ice Co. of K.C.
22 S.W.2d 215 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1929)
Zeilman v. Cent. Mut. Ins. Assn.
22 S.W.2d 88 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1929)
Security Life Ins. Co. of America v. Brimmer
36 F.2d 176 (Eighth Circuit, 1929)
Cohen v. Fort Dearborn Casualty Underwriters
285 S.W. 1024 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1926)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
276 S.W. 877, 310 Mo. 378, 1925 Mo. LEXIS 588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-metropolitan-life-insurance-v-allen-mo-1925.