Case Name: MURPHY v. COLONIAL LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1914-01-03
Citations: 145 N.Y.S. 196
Docket Number: 
Parties: MURPHY v. COLONIAL LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 145
Pages: 196–199

Head Matter:
(83 Misc. Rep. 475)
MURPHY v. COLONIAL LIFE INS. CO. OF AMERICA.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department.
January 3, 1914.)
Insurance (§ 134*)—Lins Insurance—Breach oe Conditions—Statute. Under Insurance Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 28) § 58, providing that' every life policy shall contain the entire contract, statements made by the insured in the application cannot be considered where they were not made a part oí the policy; the provision that all statements made by the insured should be deemed representations and not warranties relating only to those which were so incorporated.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Insurance, Cent. Dig. §§ 214-217; Dec. Dig. g 134.*]
Bijur, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Municipal Court, Borough of Manhattan, Third District.
Action by Mary Murphy against the Colonial Life Insurance Company of America. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued October term, 1913, before SEABURY, GUY, and BI-JUR, JJ.
Magner & Carew, of Brooklyn (John F. Carew, of Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
Charles Moise, of New York City (Thomas A. McCole and Edward Potter, both of New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

Opinion:
SEABURY, J.
This action is brought upon an industrial life insurance policy for $360, the premium upon which was payable weekly. As a defense, the defendant claims that the policy was procured by false and fraudulent representations contained in the application for the policy. The alleged fraud consists in the answer, "No," to the question in the application blank, "Is the proposed now insured in any other company, association or society, and if so for what amount?" The application was not indorsed on the policy or attached thereto, and for that reason the learned court below excluded evidence as to the application and as to the alleged falsity of the answer said to be contained therein. This ruling was made in deference to section 58 of the Insurance Law (Consol. Laws 1909, c. 28). The section provides as follows:
"Every policy of life insurance issued after January 1, 1907, shall contain the entire contract between the parties, and nothing shall be incorporated therein by reference to any constitution, by-laws, rules, application or other writings unless the same are indorsed upon or attached to the policy when issued, and all statements purporting to be made by the insured shall, in the absence of fraud, be deemed representations and not warranties. Any waiver of the provisions of this section shall be void."
I think that the ruling of the court below is sustained by the case of Becker v. Colonial Life Ins. Co., 153 App. Div. 382, 138 N. Y. Supp. 491. I had occasion to express the same view in Aaronson v. New York Life Ins. Co., 81 Misc. Rep. 228, 142 N. Y. Supp. 568, although my learned colleagues held that the representations made to induce the issuance of the policy, whether oral or in a paper not attached to the policy, may, if material, be relied upon by the insurer to defeat a recovery.
This interpretation seems to me to nullify the statute and prevent the accomplishment of its remedial purposes. The clause of section 58 of the Insurance Law, upon which the argument of the appellant is based, provides as follows:
"And all statements purporting to be made by the insured shall in the absence of fraud be deemed representations and not warranties."
This clause is not an exception to the general ríale declared in the body of section 58. The clause, as I understand it, means that, if the insurer intends to claim that it was induced to enter into a policy by virtue of any statement of the insured, it must express that statement in the policy or attach it thereto, and such statement so attached shall be deemed a representation and not a warranty, but any statement so attached, whether a representation or not, shall upon proof of fraud avoid the policy. Tlius interpreted, the clause is given a meaning which does not defeat the purpose of the statute. -1 regard this interpretation as in accord with that given to the statute in Becker v. Colonial Life Insurance Co., supra, where Mr. Justice Burr said:
"Fraud vitiates any contract, and, if proved, constitutes a good defense to an action based thereon. But to constitute fraud growing out of representations, such representations must not only have been knowingly false, but in addition they must have been material, and relied upon as an inducement to the making of the contract." 20 Cyc. 39; Brackett v. Griswold, 112 N. Y. 454, 20 N. E. 376; Powell v. Linde Co., 58 App. Div. 261, 68 N. Y. Supp. 1070, affirmed 171 N. Y. 675, 64 N. E. 1125.
I advise that the judgment be aErmed, with costs.
Judgment aErmed, with costs.
GUY, J., concurs.