Opinion ID: 2612550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Question 10 on the Life Application vs. Question 2.1. on the Medical History.

Text: Finally, plaintiff argues that the insured's statement that defeated recovery on the policy (Medical History question 2.1. on excessive use of alcohol) was not alleged in the answer, whereas the jury found that the statement alleged in the answer (Life Application question 10 on alcoholism) was not a misrepresentation. It is evident from the earlier discussion that if the answer had alleged only that the insured's application for the policy misrepresented the facts concerning his treatment for alcoholism this would have been sufficiently specific to permit proof of misrepresentations concerning treatment for excessive use of alcohol. But when the answer quotes a specific answer to a particular question on one form, does this preclude proof of another answer to a different question on a different form, when both answers are part of the application? In other words, where the pleadings are more specific than the rules require, must the latitude of proof be more narrowly confined than the rules contemplate? No rule of law can answer that question. It is a matter to be resolved by the trial court under the groundrules of fair notice of the basis of the claim and opportunity to adjudicate, Cheney v. Rucker, supra ; Blackham v. Snelgrove, supra , and under the more specific requirement that a charge of fraud must be supported by sufficient particularity to show what facts are claimed to constitute such charges. Heathman v. Hatch, quoted supra. Here, in response to plaintiff's vigorous and timely claims of prejudice in the admission of the Medical History form, the trial court found that there was no prejudice. For the following reasons, we find no abuse of discretion in that finding and that decision. First, the question quoted in the answer and the question contained in the Medical History form were different characterizations of the same general course of conduct, alcohol abuse. Consequently, this is not a circumstance where an adversary would suffer prejudice as a result of preparing to litigate the factual circumstance alleged in the pleadings, only to face proof of another circumstance at trial. Defendant's pleading provided plaintiff with adequate notice of what facts [were] claimed to constitute its defense. The law requires no more. Second, the defendant's intention to rely at least in part on the insured's answer on the Medical History form was also evident during discovery. Defendant provided plaintiff a copy of the Medical History form over seven months before trial. At about that same time, during defendant's taking of plaintiff's deposition, plaintiff was shown the Medical History form and questioned in detail about the insured's answer to question 2.1. on excessive use of alcohol. For the reasons discussed above, we conclude that the affirmative defense of the insured's misrepresentation was properly pleaded and that the evidence thereof was properly admitted. The judgment on the verdict for defendant is therefore affirmed. Costs to respondent. HALL, C.J., and STEWART, HOWE and DURHAM, JJ., concur.