Waterbury Democrat. [volume] (Waterbury [Connecticut]) 1900-1903, 1902-11-11
INSURANCE CASE
Equitable Company of New York
Refuses TO Pay.
$4,000 POLICY is CONTESTED.

.
The Company Claims the Applicant
Did Not Answer Questions Truth
fully-Judge Cole for Mr. McGrath
Succeeded in Having the Policy Ad-
mitted as Evidence.
The civil jury and Judge Shumwa
began business In the superior court
to-day. The case on trial was Ed
ward McGrath against the Equitable
Life Assurance company Of New York.
Attorneys Cole and McGrath APP
peared for the complaint and Robin
son and Bennett or New Haven for
the defense. The suit was to recover
$4,000 insurance paid upon the life Of
the late Margaret McGrath, sister
Of the plaintiff. The information was
to the effect that on April Is, 1901.
Miss McGrath insured her life for the
above named suns naming the plaint-
im as beneficiary, and on June 20 of
the same year she died. The defend
ant refused to pay the policy upon the
grounds that deceased III her applica-
ton had made certain misstatements
which in the rules Of the company had
annulled the policy. Plaintiff claimed
$1,000 damages. There were what is
called two special defeEses, which
were to the effect That Miss McGrath
had stated in her application that she
was not insured elsewhere and thst
she had no serious Illness at tie time
she made the application
In presenting the case to the jury
Attorney Cole said that the Insured
was woman well known in the city,
hnx mo al
was forewonan at tile Waterbury
Button coinpany's plant for about 20
years and early last year she gave up
this position in order to remain IT
home and take care Of her father. WHO
was very old. In March she applied
to be insured and in April the policy
was issued. The agent through whom
the business was done was john =
| Geraghty In June she took sick and
four days after taking to her bed SHE
died.
The defense replied to this III sub
stance which was filed in demurrer
and overruled as such some time ago.
The case then began, Attorney Cole put
ting in as evidence the policy. This
was objected to unless it was accom-
panied by the application. Attorney
Cole renlied that he did not have the
application and then he went into de-
tails about the application. which.
| briefly are that the moment the appli-
cation was filled out the company took
possession of It without leaving copy
with the applicant, and that was the
| last they saw Of it.
The defense replied that the appiica-
| tion would show that the answers in
| the examination should be answered
trutLfully Attorney Cole said there
was nothing to that effect in the policy.
| The policy was allowed in and the
| plaintiff was put on the stand. He
! testified To all the usual preliminaries
| and concluded by saving that the first
| premium on the policy. $105.S2. was
paid him in cash by his sister and then
| he paid the agent, Mr. Geragbtv, wifi.
| a check. because the latter refused to
| give him q receipt. His family history
was gone into a good deal.
John J. Geragbty was the last wit
ness for the plaintiff, and then the de
fense moved for non-suit The court
| said he would rule favorable to the de-
fense if the application was not IN
cluded in the evidence. This was dane.
and then George Barrett. suDerinten-
dent Of the application department of
4 the defendant company took the stand.