The daily star-mirror. (Moscow, Idaho) 1911-1939, 1920-08-17

clan for tooth ache, or temporary in
digestion. The applicant was tolc
by the physician that he consulted
that he merely had a sour stomach
and if taken care of would soon dis
appear. Therefore the question ir
this case is whether the applicant
when he stated in his application
that he had not consulted a physi-
clan for any disease within a certain
stated period did he intend to de-
ceive the Insurance Company with
reference to his physical condition.
To constitute fraud there musc be an
intention to deceive. The defendant
claims that if he had stated that he
had consulted a physician that the
defendant would have had the OPP
portunity to have inquired Of that
physician and ascertained the result
OF the consultation, and from the
evidence adduced from the witness
himself the company would have
been informed that the applicant had
consulted him, and told him that he
thought he had cancer of the stomach
and the physician told him that he
didn't have anything Of the kind, and
merely had sour stomach, which
the life insurance company's own
physician states would not have
shortened his life one day.
Life insurance companies are
anxious to get life insurance policies.
They seek the applications, and they
should be held to strict accountable
ty where an applicant has been pay
ing them premiums for years upon
their policies, and they should not
be permitted to escape responsibility
for any slight cause. If individuals
carrying life insurance policies, after
a several years payment of premiums
can have the policy annulled and not
pay the beneficiary anything, when
the applicant meets with an accident
and loses his life upon the mere
ground that the applicant had not
consulted a physician for any dis
ease within the past year or five
years, then the taking out of life in
surance for the protection of your
family is a very poor way to give
them sure protection. This court
has had many cases before it upon
the validity of life insurance policies
and it has never had case, either in
life or fire insurance, to invalidate |
but one policy, and that was where
the application and the policy provid-
ed that the applicant at the time of |
receiving the policy must be in good |
health, and the evidence showed that :
at the time the policy arrived the
applicant was in hospital and had
just had an operation performed for
appendicitis from which he died in a
few days. This court held the policy
invalid for the reason that when the
policy was received the applicant
was not in good health. This decision
was later affirmed by the supreme
court of this state.
In this case the applicant did not
intend to deceive the company when
1e stated that he had not within the :
past several years consulted a
physician for any disease 1t is a :,
veil known fact that when a party :
goes to a physician, he relies upon !
he statements of the physician as to !;
whether he has any disease and what :
t is. The ordinary individual knows q
ut little about medical science, and +
e must go to a physician upon whom ;.
e can rely, and does rely. In this h
ase he went to a physician and was =
old he had nothing the matter with u
I'm of any consequence, that he 4
lerely had sour stomach, which j j
vould disappear, and no doubt when - -
e made the application he consider y n
d this visit to the physician as i'm r +.
laterial and not important. He -
ever intended to deceive the comp F. +,
ny, and the evidence fails to show = =
lat at that time he was suffering q, :,
rom any disease which would i'm .
air the risk of life insurance. The Il
efendant in it's answer claims that ~ "
lie applicant committed suicide by -
lmping in front of an automobile, ";
ut after hearing the evidence, the n
fe insurance company appears to r,
ave abandoned this defense. 1t is +;
robable that the company as the y, y,
me it commenced this defense be- =,
eyed the applicant had committed .e
licide, and that it would not have :,
,fended on the ground it is now de- &c
ndlng had it known the full facts. J
lfe insurance companies should be
quired to be most liberal in the
lyment of policies. The profits of ~
ese companies are enormous, and ca
} who insures is entitled to every -,
assumption under the law in his ~
vor. e.
Attorney for the plaintiff will pre- ~,
re proper Judgment for my sigma % %
re, in favor of the plaintiff. w
EDGAR C. STEELE, or
Judge. o.,
)NY KILLS RIDER az