Title: HARTFORD LIVE STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY v. Phillips

State: colorado

Issuer: Colorado Supreme Court

Document:

372 P.2d 740 (1962) HARTFORD LIVE STOCK INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff in Error, v. Howard R. PHILLIPS and Frederick H. Phillips, Defendants in Error. No. 20019. Supreme Court of Colorado. In Department. June 25, 1962. *741 Dawson, Nagel, Sherman & Howard, Hugh A. Burns, Denver, for plaintiff in error. Bruce Ownbey, David G. Manter, Denver, for defendants in error. MOORE, Justice. We will refer to the parties as they appeared in the trial court where defendants in error were plaintiffs and plaintiff in error was defendant. The action was brought by plaintiffs to recover upon a policy of insurance issued by defendant on the life of a bull. The application for issuance of the policy was dated October 8, 1959. It contained a statement that plaintiffs had no knowledge that the bull had "ever been sick or injured." It also contained the following statement: On October 9, 1959, the policy was issued. Among its provisions we find the following: Undisputed facts are as follows: One of the horns of the bull was broken off in July, *742 1959, following which incident the animal was placed in a veterinary hospital at Colorado State University for treatment, where it remained for about two weeks. It was again admitted to the hospital September 3, 1959 and remained there until October 28, 1959. It was in the clinic at the time application for insurance was made. The insurance policy was delivered October 15, 1959, and the bull died November 27, 1959. Dr. Ingram, the veterinary in charge, stated that upon the second admission of the animal it had a sinus infection which was a "flare-up" from the previous injury following loss of the horn. The sinusitis was thought to be curable. A diagnosis of cancer was made following a biopsy. This diagnosis was made October 15, and plaintiffs, as owners of the bull, were notified of this fact and that the bull could not survive. It was further undisputed that the inception of the cancer antedated the application for insurance and took place in "early July or the latter part of June" 1959. The trial court adjudged that the defendant insurance company had sufficient knowledge that the bull was suffering from a physical ailment, and that by issuing the policy of insurance without a thorough investigation of the actual cause of the bull's condition they waived the provisions of the policy and the limitations of coverage contained therein. In reaching this conclusion the trial court was in error. Defendant affirmatively alleged as a defense that the loss was not covered by the terms and conditions of the policy for the reason that the animal was not in good health at the time of the delivery of the policy, and that it died as a result of disease or injury which had its inception before the application for insurance was executed. Those defenses were established without dispute, by the evidence. From 29A Am. Jur. p. 289, § 1135, we quote the following: The judgment is reversed. SUTTON and PRINGLE, JJ., concur.