Case ID: ohio-cc-ns_7/html/0397-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

RETURN OF APPLICATION WITH POLICY OF INSURANCE.
    [Circuit Court of Hamilton County.]
    The Prudential Insurance Company v. John J. Gilligan.
    Decided, December 18, 1905.
    
      Life Insurance — Construction of Section 3623 — With Reference to Return of Application with Policy — Estoppel Against Company under Section 3626.
    1. Section 3623 clearly contemplates that there may be more than one application in connection with a policy of life insurance, and requires that a copy of the application be returned at the time of a renewal, as well as at the time of the original issue.
    2. Having received premiums for more than three years on the policy sued on in this case, the company is estopped; by Section 3626 from making a defense on the 'ground of false statements in the application.
    Jelke, P. J.; Swing, J., and Giffen, J., concur.
   This action was brought by the plaintiff below against defendant on certain policies upon the life of one Mary 'MeGrew, which it alleged had been assigned to him.'

The answer sets up that there were certain false statements iin the application upon which the policies had been renewed at one time after they had lapsed. To this answer is a reply that no copy of the application upon which said policies had been renewed had ever been returned to the insured. This is not controverted on behalf of the company, and it appears from the record that this is so. It is contended on behalf of plaintiff in error that inasmuch as this application was made long after the insurance policy had been issued, that in the nature jof things it could not be returned with and as part of the policy as provided in Section 3623, Revised Statutes, and that therefore said section of the statute is not applicable to it. We are of opinion that this contention is not well taken. Said Section 3623, Revised Statutes, reads as follows:

Denis F. Cash, for plaintiff in error.

Chas. F. Williams, contra.

“Every company doing business in this state shall return with, and as part of any policy issued by it, to any person taking such policy, a full and complete copy of each application or other document held by it which is intended in 'any manner to affect the force or validity of such policy, and any company which neglects so to do shall, so long as it is in default for such copy, be estopped from denying the truth of any such application or other document; and in case such company neglect, for thirty days after demand made therefor, to furnish shell copies, it shall be forever barred from setting up, 'as a defense to any suit on such policy, any incorrectness or want of truth of such application or other document.”

The words of the statute clearly contemplate that there may be more than one application in connection with any policy. It certainly, at the time of renewal, was within the power of said insurance company to have returned to the insured a copy of the application on which said policy was renewed.

We are further of the opinion -that the plaintiff in error was estopped below from making the defense relied on by Section 3626, Revised Statutes, said company having received premiums for more than three years thereon.

Judgment affirmed.