Court Opinion

ID: 9673944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:21:00.750339+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:06:36.229040
License: Public Domain

LATIMER, Justice
(dissenting).
I can not agree with the majority opinion herein. Under it the insurance company may say: It is our privilege to select our *571agent; it is our privilege tq select 'our doctor. The applicant must apply through our selected agent and be examined by our selected doctor. Multiple and complex questions are asked and though the applicant in answering tells our agents the truth, who then instead of writing in the answers as given falsify the answers, the responsibility therefor is applicant’s, not ours.
This is placing no corresponding responsibility upon the one with the privilege .of selecting and naming the agent. It, in reality, makes both the soliciting agent and the doctor the agents of applicant.
I think the correct rule is found in 29 Am. Jur., Insurance, Section 846: “Apart from any question of the effect of an attempt by the insurer to limit the authority of its agent by stipulations inserted in the application or policy, or provisions in its bylaws, or by statute, the rule supported by the great weight of authority is that if an application for insurance is drawn by an agent of the insurer, who fills in false answers to the interrogations contained therein which are truthfully answered by the insured, without fraud, collusion, or actual knowledge of the insured, or the existence of circumstances from which constructive knowledge of such falsity might foe imputed to him, the insurer cannot rely upon the falsity of such answers in seeking to avoid liability under the policy issued upon the application. The view generally taken is that the agent in making out the application acts for the insurer, and that the insurer is therefore estopped to asser.t the mistake or, as has been said in some cases, the mistake is deemed to be waived by the insurer.”
The instant policy contained a provision to the effect that no statement to, or by, and no knowledge on the part of any agent, medical examiner or any other person “as to facts pertaining to the applicant should' be considered -as having been made to or brought to the knowledge of the Company unless stated in either part A or part B of this application.”
Prior to the Roberts case, cited as controlling in the majority opinion, this jurisdiction refused to give effect to a limitation in such respect upon. the authority of an agent or medical examiner. See Standard Auto Insurance Association v. Russell, 199 Ky. 470, 251 S.W. 628.
I am of the opinion that the refusal'to give effect to the limitation should apply especially in cases where the insurer itself does not rely solely upon the answers in the application but goes further and requires a medical examination. In which event the knowledge of the examining physician should be imputed to the principal. See 45 C.J.S., Insurance, § 692, P. 649. Whether or not truthful or false answers were made to the agents should be a question for the jury.
For these reasons I respectfully dissent. Chief Justice CAMMACK and Judge COMBS join me in this dissent.