Court Opinion

ID: 9570783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:26:14.11338+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:28.395178
License: Public Domain

Wilkie, J.
This case is controlled by sec. 209.06 (1), Stats.,2 which has been interpreted to mean that there are three alternative grounds for avoiding such a policy:
*349“ (1) If the statement was false and made with intent to deceive; (2) if the statement increased the risk; or (3) if the statement contributed to the loss.” 3
In the instant case there was no contention that the respondent’s statements contributed to the loss.
The principal issue presented on this appeal is whether there was credible evidence to support the jury verdict that there was no increase in the risk resulting from any false statements made by Mrs. Delaney in her application. To resolve this issue we must judge the jury verdict in the light of the familiar rules that (1) a jury verdict will not be upset if there is any credible evidence which under any reasonable view fairly admits of an inference supporting the findings,4 (2) this is particularly true when the verdict has the blessing of the trial court,5 and (3) the evidence is to be viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict.6
We are satisfied that the failure of the respondent to disclose her hospitalizations in January, 1961, relating to angina pectoris, in September, 1958, relating to asthma, and in February, 1958, relating to nervous tension (tachycardia) , was a misrepresentation which, under the facts of this case, as a matter of law, increased the risk and therefore voided the policy. We are also satisfied that *350her failure to disclose her eight hospitalizations (excluding from the 14 hospitalizations the two reported on the application and four others — two for childbirth, one for abdominal infection which developed as a result of the birth of the first daughter, and one for an infected toenail) was a misrepresentation which, under the facts of this case, as a matter of law, increased the risk and also voided the policy.
Three earlier cases are directly in point: Demirjian v. New York Life Ins. Co.,7 McGowan v. Supreme Court of Independent Order of Foresters 8 and Peterson v. Independent Order of Foresters.9 In Demirjian, the jury found that the applicant had made false statements that “(1) the insured had not had or consulted a physician for any disease of the stomach; (2) had never consulted a physician for any ailment; (8) had never consulted or been examined or treated by any physician for five years prior to his application.” 10 Although the jury also found that “the insured suffered from ulcers of the stomach during April and May next prior to his application, . . . this ailment did not increase the risk ....”11 On appeal this court let stand the jury’s verdict that the statements of the applicant, though false, were made without intent to deceive. This court, however, did hold that the jury’s finding that the ulcers did not increase the risk was in error and that the risk was increased as a matter of law. In McGowan, this court held that “[a] 11 of the questions as to the health ... of the ancestors or brothers and sisters” of the applicant “were material to the risk as a matter of law.” 12 In Peterson, because *351the applicant admittedly had been treated by a physician within five years of the application for contusion of the chest, laceration of the leg, the trial court voided the policy, holding that the applicant’s representation to the effect that he had suffered no injuries within the last five years was “necessarily material to the risk.” 13
In each of these cases there was a misrepresentation that increased the risk: The failure to give information about the applicant’s ulcers in Demirjian; the failure to give health information about close ancestors in McGowan; and the failure to report the leg injury which had to be treated, in Peterson. So here, the applicant failed to report hospitalizations concerning heart trouble, asthma, and tachycardia, and at least five other important hospitalizations. And, crucially, there was uncontradicted testimony by appellant’s witnesses that these misrepresentations increased the risk. Without competing testimony to bring about a jury question, we hold that such evidence increased the risk as a matter of law, thus voiding the policy.
In an attempt to raise a jury question, respondent, relying on the testimony of her physician, Dr. Henske, that since none of her conditions was actually serious and since she was in good health in 1963, argues that the jury could have inferred that the policy would have been issued even if all her hospitalizations were known. In the absence of qualified testimony to the effect that persons engaged in the same type of insurance business, acting reasonably and naturally in accordance with the practice usual in the insurance industry,14 would have issued the policy even in the face of these misrepresentations, there is no basis for drawing any such inference and no jury question is presented. Moreover, this argument ignores *352the testimony (also uncontradicted) of appellant’s underwriting and medical personnel that the fact that she was confined 14 times — regardless of the nature of her ailments — would be enough to cause the application to be rejected on the basis that she was either hospital prone or a hypochondriac.
Since the policy is voided as a matter of law because there were misrepresentations that increased the risk, it is unnecessary to consider whether, as a matter of law, the respondent made false statements with intent to deceive. No intent to deceive need be shown where there is a misrepresentation that increases the risk.15
By the Court. — Judgment reversed.

 “209.06 Insurance; application; effect. (1) No oral or written statement, representation or warranty made by the insured or in his behalf in the negotiation of a contract of insurance shall be deemed material or defeat or avoid the policy, unless such statement, representation or warranty was false and made with intent to deceive, or unless the matter misrepresented or made a warranty increased the risk or contributed to the loss.”

 Polar Mfg. Co. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. (1959), 7 Wis. (2d) 443, 447, 96 N. W. (2d) 822. See also Langlois v. Wisconsin National Life Ins. Co. (1963), 19 Wis. (2d) 151, 119 N. W. (2d) 400, 120 N. W. (2d) 884; Stockinger v. Central National Ins. Co. (1964), 24 Wis. (2d) 245, 128 N. W. (2d) 433.

 Zweifel v. Milwaukee Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. (1965), 28 Wis. (2d) 249, 137 N. W. (2d) 6; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Burchard (1964), 25 Wis. (2d) 288, 130 N. W. (2d) 866.

 Metcalf v. Consolidated Badger Co-operative (1965), 28 Wis. (2d) 552, 137 N. W. (2d) 457; Erdmann v. Milwaukee Automobile Mut. Ins. Co. (1963), 20 Wis. (2d) 439, 122 N. W. (2d) 430.

 Brunette v. Dade (1964), 25 Wis. (2d) 617, 131 N. W. (2d) 340; St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Burchard, supra, footnote 4.

 (1931), 205 Wis. 71, 236 N. W. 566.

 (1899), 104 Wis. 173, 80 N. W. 603.

 (1916), 162 Wis. 562, 156 N. W. 951.

 Demirjian v. New York Life Ins. Co., supra, footnote 7, at page 72.

 Ibid.

 McGowan v. Supreme Court of Independent Order of Foresters, supra, footnote 8, at page 183.

 Peterson v. Independent Order of Foresters, supra, footnote 9, at page 564.

 Wis J I—Civil, Part II, 3110; Polar Mfg. Co. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co. (1960), 11 Wis. (2d) 105, 109, 110, 104 N. W. (2d) 164.

 Polar Mfg. Co. v. Integrity Mut. Ins. Co.; Langlois v. Wisconsin National Life Ins. Co.; Stockinger v. Central National Ins. Co.; all supra, footnote 3.