Case Name: Minnie Schoenle, Plaintiff in Error, v. Great Eastern Casualty Company, Defendant in Error
Court: Illinois Appellate Court
Jurisdiction: Illinois
Decision Date: 1915-10-13
Citations: 201 Ill. App. 5
Docket Number: 
Parties: Minnie Schoenle, Plaintiff in Error, v. Great Eastern Casualty Company, Defendant in Error.
Judges: 
Reporter: Illinois Appellate Court Reports
Volume: 201
Pages: 5–6

Head Matter:
Minnie Schoenle, Plaintiff in Error, v. Great Eastern Casualty Company, Defendant in Error.
(Not to he reported in full.)
Abstract of the Decision.
1. Insurance, § 122 —when application not part of accident pot-icy. An application for an accident insurance policy, held not to have been made a part of a .policy stating that such application had been made a part thereof by indorsement thereon of a copy of such application, where such copy differed materially, as to facts stated, from the original application.
2. Insurance, § 331*—when insurer may not forfeit policy. An insurance company cannot forfeit a policy for causes known to the agent at the time he issued it.
Error to the County Court of Sangamon county; the Hon. Charles J. Gehlbach, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1914.
Reversed and remanded.
Opinion filed October 13, 1915.
Statement of the Case.
Action under an accident insurance policy by Minnie Schoenle, plaintiff, against the Great Eastern Casualty Company, defendant, for death of the insured. To review a judgment against her, the plaintiff prosecutes a writ of error.
The defendant company’s agent knew at the time of the issuance of the policy and making of the application that a policy formerly held by the applicant in another company had been canceled, which fact the applicant failed to mention in the proper space in the application.
Andrus & Trutter, for plaintiff in error.
T. J. Sullivan, for defendant in error.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.
See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Graves
delivered the opinion of the court.
3. Insurance—when knowledge by agent of facts concerning applicant which are ground for forfeiture question for jury. In an action on. an accident insurance policy, held a question for the jury whether the agent knew facts concerning the applicant at the time of issuance of the policy which, had he not known them, would 'have been ground for forfeiture.
4. Insurance, § 686 —when manner of death of insured question for jury. In an action on an accident insurance policy, the question whether the insured was a temperate man and met his death by accident or as a result of alcoholism, held for the jury, the evidence being conflicting.