Silk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania February 12, 1894

Silk v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Assn., 159 Pa. 625 (Pa. 1894)

28 A. 445; 1894 Pa. LEXIS 908

Dean, McCollum, Mitchell, Sterrett, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam,

There was no error in refusing to affirm either of defendant’s three points, recited in the specifications respectively. In effect, *628the affirmance of either would have been a withdrawal of the case from the jury with binding instructions to render a verdict for the defendant. That would have been clear error. The evidence was quite sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury, and that was done in a clear, concise and adequate charge, in which their attention was fairly and impartially called to the questions of fact, presented by the testimony. The verdict in favor of plaintiff was warranted by the evidence; and we find no error in the record, of which the defendant company has any just reason to complain.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Cited By: 1 case
Status: Published
Syllabus: life Insurance — Release—Fraud. In an action on a policy of life insurance, where defendant company sets up a release signed by the beneficiary under the policy, it is proper to submit the ease to the jury where the evidence for plaintiff, although contradicted, tends to show that when she applied to the agent of the company he told her the company would not pay the policy because the assured had declared that she had never been treated for heart disease, while a letter from a doctor which the agent read to the beneficiary stated that she had been so treated ; and the evidence further tends to show that this letter was false,-and had no real existence, and that the beneficiary had signed the release in reliance upon the letter. Life Insurance — Statements as to health — Waiver. A person applying for life insurance stated in her application that she had never been treated for heart disease. After the policy had been issued she wrote a letter to the company stating that some of the questions in the application which she had signed had not been put to her, and further stated that prior to the signing of the application she had been treated for heart trouble. Notwithstanding this letter, the company, three weeks after its receipt, accepted from the assured an assessment which had been levied about ten days after the letter was received. Held, that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the company had waived the irregularity in the application.