Case Name: LIVINGSTON v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO.
Court: Supreme Court of South Carolina
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1922-05-20
Citations: 120 S.C. 93
Docket Number: 10727
Parties: LIVINGSTON v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO.
Judges: Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.
Reporter: South Carolina Reports
Volume: 120
Pages: 93–132

Head Matter:
10727
LIVINGSTON v. UNION CENTRAL LIFE INS. CO.
(112 S. E. 547)
1. Stipulations'—Admission That Insured Was not Guilty of Fraud in Making False Answer Admits he did not Know it Was False. —An admission on the record by counsel for the defendant insurance company, that an applicant for insurance was not guilty of fraud in making a false answer to a question, is an admission that he was not conscious at the time he made the answer that it was false in fact.
2. Appeal and Error—Former Ruling on Sufficiency of Evidence is Controlling Where Subsequent Evidence Differs Only in Quantity.—A ruling by the Supreme Court on a former appeal, that the evidence was insufficient to show the false statement made by insured was material, justifies a directed verdict against the insurance company on a retrial, where the evidence as to the materiality of misrepresentation differed merely in quantity and not in quality or character.
Before Whaley, County Court, Richland, January, 1921.
Affirmed.
Action by Mrs. Mattie Caldwell Livingston against Union Central Life Insurance Co. From directed verdict for plaintiff the defendani appeals.
For former appeal in this case see 115 S. C., 118.
Mr. R. B. Herbert, for appellant,
cites: What is material fact in application for insurance: 1 Mills Const. Rep., 154. It was error to direct a verdict: 1 Mills Const. Rep., 154. 3 Brew., 573; 4 McC. L., 511; 26 Cyc., 615 ; Joyce Ins., Sec. 3710-A. Not 'necessary to plead fraud: 111 S. C., 482; 241 U. S., 622; 117 U. S., 529; 3 Joyce Ins. (3d Ed.), Secs. 1897, 1892; 79 S. E., 809; 16 A. & E. Ene. L. (2nd Ed.), 933; 14 R. C. L., 1075; 83 S. C., 236; 4 McC. L. 511. Tender did not come too late : 107 S. C., 393; 102 S. C.. 115 ; 113 S. C., 10.
Note: On effect of honest mistake in answer as to .health of insured warranted by him to be true, see notes in 53 L. R. A.', 193 and 15 L. R. A. (N. S.), 1277.
Messrs. Lyles & Lyles, for respondent,
cite: Fraud is a necessary element to avoid the policy. 61 S. C, 338; 80 S. C, 392; 83 S. C, 236; 92 S. C, 45; 106 S. C, 419; 107 S. C, 21; 112 S. C, 139; 110 S. C, 384; 111 S. C, 399; 171 Pac, 621; 173 Pac, 841; 115 S. C, 113; 115 S. C, 182. The tender came too late: 56 S. C, 508; 61 S. C, 455; 107 N. E, 557; 92 N. E, 380; 88 S. C„ 533; 111 S. C, 339. Verdict is proper and should be sustained: 93 S. C, 295; 93 S. C, 420. Answers in application need not be literally true, if substantially true: 50 S. E, 529. “True” is synonym of “honest, sincere, not fraudulent” : 111 U. S. 342; 241 U. .S, 613.
May 20, 1922.

Opinion:
The opinion of the Court was delivered by
Mr. Justice Watts.
This is an appeal from, a directed verdict in favor of plaintiff by the trial Judge, County Court, Judge Whaley. His Honor directed a verdict on the ground of materiality, ruling that the evidence upon this trial differed merely in quantity and not in quality of character from that before the Supreme Court then, the opinion in which has since been filed. Livingston v. Insurance Co., 115 S. C, 128, 104 S. E, 538. The exceptions are four in number, and respondent served notice that she would ,ask that the verdict be sustained on three additional grounds.
Counsel for appellant admitted on the record during the trial that he did not allege or charge in the evidence that Livingston was guilty of fraud. This was an admission that Livingston did not know, and was not conscious at the time he made the answers, that his answers were false in fact. In the court's ruling he eliminated any charge of fraud. The record expressly admitted that Livingston, in making answers, was not conscious of' any falsity. Even if he had answered, as appellant now contends that he should have answered, and the appellant had written the doctors, the appellant would not have received any further information that would have helped it, as an examination of the testimony of Drs. Gibbes, Taylor, and McIntosh will disclose. Livingston was examined at the request of his wife, and did not himself consult a physician.
His Honor could not have done otherwise under the case of Livingston v. Union Central Life. Insurance Co., 115 S. C, 128, 104 S. E., 538, than direct a verdict. He was correct in holding that the evidence in the case on the question of materiality differed only in quantity, not in quality of character, and, under the opinion by Mr. Justice Gage, in the other case, the Court would stultify itself not to overrule the exceptions and affirm the judgment. There is no evidence that Livingston himself at any time consulted any physician.
Judgment affirmed.
Mr. Chiee Justice Gary and Mr. Justice Fraser concur.
Mr. Justice Cothran dissents.