Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-03-02
Notes of Cases Recently Decided,
Which are of Interest to
Our People.
DIGESTED BY W. B. MART TIN.
Exclusively for Virginian-P ilot.)
BURRUSS V. NATIONAL LIFE
ASSOCIATION.
Supreme Court of Appeals OF Virginia,
January -, 1899.

INSURANCE POLICY CODE OF
VIRGINIA. SECTION $3.50. RE-
CURING CONDITIONS AND
RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS OF
a POLICY TO BE PRINT
ED IN TYPE OF A sPECI-
FLED SIZE. OR WRITTEN, APP
PLIES TO THE APPLICATION
FOR THE POLICY, If EXPRESSLY
MADE ~ PART or THE CON
TRACT OF INSURANCE.
WHERE INSURANCE Is AFFECTED
FOR THE BENEFIT OF A CRED
ITOR ON TIE LIFE OF A DEBT
OR. UPON NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.
MADE BY TIE ASSURED. IT WILL
V1TlATE THE POLICY AL
THOUGH THE BENEFICIARY
WAS IGNORANT OF THE MIsREp-
OBSERVATIONS.
The PLAINTIFF was the beneficiary in
q life insurance policy issued by de-
PENDANT on the life of debtor OF the
piaint,h. me debtor died and suit was;
brought on the policy. The company
ciaiincd That the debtor had obtained
the policy by fraud. The lower court de-
cidcd in favor of the defendant on a
demurrer to the evidence ana plaintiff
appealed. The Court Of Appeals sus-
tanning the lower court says:
The court is of opinion that section
500 OF the Code, which provides that
no failure TO perform any condition or
restrictive provision of Il policy shall
be Il valid defence to an action there
on unless such condition or restrictive
provision be printed in type of a speci-
iied size or written with pen and ink
HER on the peliey,applies aiikt. to the
application and the policy issued there
on, where. rs in the case under cons,d-
GRAFTON, the application is expressly
f1aue Il part of the contract OF insur-
ahce. Any other construction
would enable the insurer to avoid the
statute by putting all such conditions
ana restrictive provisions in the appli-
cation alone. The clause in the npnlica
tion obnoxious To this provision OF the
statute must therefore be dlsregartled.
and the case considered as If no con
ditions, or restrictive provisions were
embodied in the contract sued on. The
defendant company by it's plea. puts
IN issue the bona fidcS of the contract
Dy alleging that the answers made by
the insured To certain material oues-
tons were absolutely false and untrue.
ana mat they were made for the pur-
pose oi misleading. deceiving and de-
frauding the defendant. and did de-
ceive and misiead it into issuing the
pollcy sued on. Recognizing and giving
run force To the rule controllinc I'm case
OF n demurrer to evidence this Mica is
apundantly sustained. The policy in
question was issued for the benefit of a
creditor of the insured, and 1t is con-
tended that the beneficiary Is not affect
ed by the false representations of the
insured. because the agent of the com
pany who took the application had
knowledge of the falsity Of such state
mcnts at the time they were made. and
that the company is estopped to rely
on the same as avoiding the policy In.
dependent of the question who. her
such knowledge If possessed bv Tho
agent would bind the company. and
prevent it from relying on the fraud Of
the insured. tho evidence does not sus
tain the contention that any such
knowledge was brought home to the
agent.
1t would hardly be con,enlea that If
the insured had taken ont this policy
Tor his own benefit that his estate could
recover 1t in the face OF the gross fraud
SHOWN TO have been perpctratcd by him
In procuring It. There is nothing in
the circumstances OF this case 10 place
the beneficiary in any better position
than the insured would have occupiel
had the policy been for his benefit.
Where insurance is effected upon the
life of third person for the benefit of
creditor and Misrepresentation of
materials matters inducing the contra /
St4v-tffa t4e-bf taai aai-t s--+rhose lifeLG- in
sured, it viii vitiatc the policy. al
though the beneficiary was ignorant OF
such false representations. For these
reasons the judgment complained OF
must be affirmed.
BRUNSWICK GROCERY co. V.