Meyer-Bruns v. Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania January 30, 1899

Meyer-Bruns v. Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance, 189 Pa. 579 (Pa. 1899)

42 A. 297; 1899 Pa. LEXIS 696

Ctjriam, Dean, Fell, Gbeen, McCollum, Mitchell, Stebbbtt, Williams

Opinion of the Court

Per Ctjriam,

The proposed testimony referred to in the first specification was rightly excluded because it was incompetent for the purpose stated in the offer or for any other legitimate purpose in this case.

We find nothing in the testimony that would have justified the learned trial judge in submitting the case to the jury. There was no disputed question of fact for their consideration. It was conclusively shown by uncontroverted evidence that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on the policy in suit, and there was therefore no error in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant company.

Judgment affirmed.

Reference

Full Case Name: Aloise Meyer-Bruns, of the last will and testament of Frank Meyer-Bruns v. The Pennsylvania Mutual Life Insurance Company
Cited By: 5 cases
Status: Published
Syllabus: Insurance—False answer in application—Evidence. In an action upon a policy of life insurance where the application showed that the insured had falsely stated that he had not been rejected by any other company, evidence that at the time the insured was being examined he stated to the medical examiner that he had been rejected by another company, and that the examiner had told him that the other company was a beneficial and not an old line company, and that his rejection would not affect his policy, is not admissible to rebut the statement in the application. In an action upon a policy of life insurance where the uncontradicted evidence for the insurance company established the fact that the insured had falsely stated in his application that he had not been rejected by another company and that he had no serious illness, while, in fact, he had a fatal disease of which he died in about four months thereafter, it is proper for the trial judge to direct the jury to return a verdict in favor of the insurance company.