Wall v. Diamond State Life Insurance

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Wall v. Diamond State Life Insurance

175 S.E.2d 602, 9 N.C. App. 231, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1320

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedAugust 5, 1970

DocketNo. 7025DC346

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 175 S.E.2d 602 (Wall v. Diamond State Life Insurance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wall v. Diamond State Life Insurance, 175 S.E.2d 602, 9 N.C. App. 231, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1320 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Vaughn, J.

The only real question presented by the appeal is whether the provisions of the policy contained in the “Age Limit” clause are rendered inoperative by the provisions contained in the “Time Limit on Certain Defenses” clause. To this question our answer is no.

Where a policy provides that in the event of misrepresentation as to age, the contract will be adjusted so as to pay the amount actually due under the insured’s correct age. It is generally held that this provision relates not to the efficacy of the contract, but to the benefits due, and is not affected by the incontestable clause. 1 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Sec. 334, p. 606; 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, § 1169; Annot., 135 A.L.R. 445. It is our opinion that the age limit clause in the policy in question should, for similar reasons, be given effect. “With this provision in the face of the policy, plaintiff’s recovery is limited to a return of the premiums paid while the insured was over the age of 65 years.” McCabe v. Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577, 183 S.E. 743. The “Age Limit” clause in the policy is almost identical to G.S. 58-259.1 which requires the same result as to all policies to which it is applicable.

[234]*234We have carefully considered all of the assignments of error brought forward and argued by plaintiff as to each defendant. The judgments, as to each defendant, are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Campbell and Britt, JJ., concur.

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

Vaughn, J.

The only real question presented by the appeal is whether the provisions of the policy contained in the “Age Limit” clause are rendered inoperative by the provisions contained in the “Time Limit on Certain Defenses” clause. To this question our answer is no.

Where a policy provides that in the event of misrepresentation as to age, the contract will be adjusted so as to pay the amount actually due under the insured’s correct age. It is generally held that this provision relates not to the efficacy of the contract, but to the benefits due, and is not affected by the incontestable clause. 1 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice, Sec. 334, p. 606; 43 Am. Jur. 2d, Insurance, § 1169; Annot., 135 A.L.R. 445. It is our opinion that the age limit clause in the policy in question should, for similar reasons, be given effect. “With this provision in the face of the policy, plaintiff’s recovery is limited to a return of the premiums paid while the insured was over the age of 65 years.” McCabe v. Casualty Co., 209 N.C. 577, 183 S.E. 743. The “Age Limit” clause in the policy is almost identical to G.S. 58-259.1 which requires the same result as to all policies to which it is applicable.

[234]*234We have carefully considered all of the assignments of error brought forward and argued by plaintiff as to each defendant. The judgments, as to each defendant, are affirmed.

Affirmed.

Campbell and Britt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

175 S.E.2d 602, 9 N.C. App. 231, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wall-v-diamond-state-life-insurance-ncctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack