Opinion ID: 2612550
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alcoholism vs. excessive use of alcohol.

Text: Plaintiff next relies on the fact that the affirmative defense refers only to treatment ... for alcoholism, whereas the jury found no deception in the insured's answer on alcoholism. In contrast, the pleading makes no reference to the insured's denial that he had been treated for excessive use of alcohol, which the jury did find constituted an omission, an incorrect statement, and a misrepresentation. We agree with the district court that the answer's reference to treatment ... for alcoholism was sufficient and fair notice to plaintiff that the general subject of treatment for excessive use of alcohol was in issue. Pleadings need not be as precisely phrased or as rigorously construed as special interrogatories. The fact that the jury was called upon to distinguish between the truthfulness of these two terms does not mean that the two must be distinguished for purposes of the general notice required to be communicated in the pleadings. In the course of the trial, both parties elicited evidence or took positions to the effect that there are no concrete definitions of alcoholic or alcoholism. [6] In view of the general nature of the term used in the pleadings, and in view of the liberalized pleading rules discussed earlier, we think the district court was clearly correct in ruling that defendant's pleading of misrepresentations about alcoholism permitted the introduction of evidence on misrepresentations concerning excessive use of alcohol. The trial court followed the proper procedure in leaving the meaning of these terms and the question of misrepresentation to the jury. This is especially true since questions of material and prejudicial variance between pleadings and proof, 71 C.J.S. Pleading §§ 531-35 (1951), are peculiarly within the province of the trial court, and will be reversed only for abuse of discretion.