Case Name: BRIGNAC et al. v. PACIFIC MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1904-02-15
Citations: 112 La. 574
Docket Number: No. 14,907
Parties: BRIGNAC et al. v. PACIFIC MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA.
Judges: LAND, J., concurs in the decree. PROVOSTY, .1., dissents.
Reporter: Louisiana Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 573–597

Head Matter:
(36 South. 595.)
No. 14,907.
BRIGNAC et al. v. PACIFIC MUT. LIFE INS. CO. OF CALIFORNIA.
(Feb. 15, 1904.)
INSURANCE — APPLICATION—WARRANTIES—REPRESENTATIONS — SUICIDE — FINDINGS OP COURT OP APPEAL — WRIT OP REVIEW.
1. In an application for life insurance, a negative answer to the question, “Do you use spirituous, malt, or vinous liquors?” is not false when the answerer partakes of intoxicating liquors only occasionally and temperately.
2. A clause in a life insurance policy reading, “If I die by my own hand or act, voluntary or involuntary, sane or insane,” is a mere ordinary suicide clause, and is not violated by an act done without suicidal intent.
3. The pronounced leaning of our jurisprudence is against finding that there has been suicidal intent, where the facts will possibly admit of a different construction.
4. This court is extremely reluctant to disturb,, on writ of review, the findings of fact of the-court of appeal.
On Rehearing.
5. The Supreme Court has authority to review conclusions of fact reached by the court of appeal, but -only does so in exceptional cases. State ex rel. Satcho v. Judge, 21 South. 690,. 49 La. Ann. 235.
6. In reaching their conclusions as to whether a person has committed .suicide, courts are not tied down by the rigid rules of the criminal law. They are authorized to act upon circumstantial as well as direct evidence. The presumptions upon which they act should be weighty, precise, and consistent.
7. The death of a person resulting from morphine administered by himself is in one sense death from his own hand, but it is not necessarily suicide. Kling v. Accident Association, 29 South. 332, 104 La. 766.
8. The mere fact itself that an application for insurance may be annexed to and made part of the policy of insurance does not carry with it necessarily, as a consequence, that all the statements and declarations contained therein should be held to be “warranties,” though the failure so to annex the application and make it part of the policy would leave them to be dealt with as “representations.”
9. When 'the situation is such in a particular case as will, as a matter of law, carry with it forfeiture of the policy as a penalty, that result will follow, whether it has been expressly stipulated for and declared or not.
10. Nothing in the application or policy in this case, nor in the defendant’s pleadings, can be held to be admissions that the answers of the assured to questions -propounded to him by the medical examiner were mere “representations” in their character.
11. A matter specifically inquired about in a question propounded by an insurance company to a party seeking to obtain a policy of life insurance, and the answer thereto, are equal to an agreement that the matter inquired about is material, and any misrepresentation in the answer will avoid the policy, though the matter may not have been really material to the risk in the particular case.
When answers made by a party in his application for a policy of life insurance to questions propounded to him by the insurance company were such as might have influenced the company in determining whether to accept the risk and in determining what premium to charge, the answers must be truthful.
Provosty, J., dissenting.
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Certiorari to Court of Appeal, Third Circuit.
Action by Itha Brignae and others against the Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Company of California on a policy of insurance. A judgment for defendant was reversed by the court of appeal, and defendant applies for certiorari or writ of review.
Judgment of court of appeal reversed.
Lewis & Lewis, for applicant. R. Lee Garland and Edward Benjamin Du Buisson, for respondents.

Opinion:
PROVOSTY, J.
This suit is on a policy of life insurance. It is before this court on a writ of review to the court of ax>peal.
The defenses are that the insured committed suicide, and that he did not answer truly to the questions in his application for the policy, with reference to his being or having been a user of spirituous liquors, and that, as a consequence, the policy has been forfeited under its express terms.
The questions and answers referred to are the following:
"Q. Do you use spirituous, malt, or vinous liquors? A. No. Q. State the average quantity you use each day. A. No. Q. Have you at any time used them to excess (give full particulars)? A. No. Q. Are you now or did you intend to become engaged in the sale of the same? A. No."
The court of appeal found that these questions directed the mind of the applicant for insurance, not to an occasional or incidental use, but to an habitual or excessive use, and that a negative answer to the question, "Do you use spirituous, malt, or vinous liquors?" is not false when the answerer partakes of intoxicating liquors only occasionally and temperately; and the court found that the drinking of the insured was of the latter character. The court cites May on Ins. pp. .379, 637, 638, notes; Standard Dictionary, words "Use" and "Habit"; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Reif, 36 Ohio St. 596, 38 Am. Rep. 613, and note, pp. 615, 616, 38 Am. Rep.; Chambers v. Northwestern, etc., Ins. Co., 64 Minn. 495, 67 N. W. 367, 58 Am. St Rep. 549.
This ruling was correct we think, both on the facts and on the law.
On the question of suicide, the court held that a clause reading, "If I die by my own hand or act, voluntary or involuntary, sane or insane," was a mere ordinary suicide clause, and was not violated by an act not done with suicidal intent. The court cites Penfold v. Universal life Ins. Co., 85 N. Y. 317, 39 Am. Rep. 660; 84 Am. St. Rep., note, pp. 542, 551; May on Ins. § 307; Am. & E. Ency. of L. (2d Ed.) vol. 19, p. 77.
With this ruling, again, we fully concur.
With the court's ruling on the facts on the question of suicide, we are not so well satisfied. On this point we are much impressed by the very strong showing made in relator's brief. However, in view of the extreme reluctance of this court to disturb on writ of review the findings of fact of the court of appeal, and considering the pronounced leaning of our jurisprudence against finding that there has been suicidal intent where the facts will possibly admit of a different construction (Boynton v. Equitable Life Assur. Co., 105 La. 202, 29 South. 490, 52 L. R. A. 687; Leman v. Ins. Co., 46 La. Ann. 1189, 15 South. 388, 24 L. R. A. 589, 49 Am. St. Rep. 348; Phillips v. Equitable Life Ins. Co., 26 La. Ann. 404, 21 Am. Rep. 549), we have concluded not to disturb the judgment.
The judgment of the court of appeal is affirmed, and the writ of review is nqw dismissed at the cost of the applicant.