Court Opinion

ID: 9585028
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:55:20.428075+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:26:41.859234
License: Public Domain

COMPTON, J.,
dissenting.
In this action at law for breach of contract, the majority, incorrectly in my view, has placed the ultimate burden of proof on the issue of damages on the defendant, applying an equitable theory never briefed or argued, and relying entirely on cases never cited by the litigants.
In the amended motion for judgment, filed by Carol M. Wells, individually, and as administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, the widow alleged that on September 5, 1973, the date the loan was closed, “Jefferson Lanear Wells, Jr., was in good health, was insurable, and . . . there would have been no reason for an insurance company to reject his application for coverage.” This was an assertive allegation by the moving party in the lawsuit, upon which devolved the procedural obligation to show not only a breach of contract by the defendant but that damages resulted from the breach.
Responding in the grounds of defense, the defendant “affirmatively allege [d] that the plaintiff’s decedent was uninsurable on *698September 5, 1973 as a result of pre-existing conditions of health which were not disclosed to the defendant at any time on or prior to September 5, 1973.” Even though the defendant chose to “affirmatively” plead the defense, this is not a suit against an insurance company to recover upon a life insurance policy; in such a case, the burden to prove misrepresentation by the insured is normally on the defendant. But here, in this suit against a financial institution for breach of a contract to procure insurance, the plaintiff was not damaged unless the decedent was insurable at the time in question. Consequently, proof of insurability was an integral part of plaintiffs claim. Yet, the majority concludes, applying notions of waiver and estoppel not even advanced by the plaintiff, that the defendant, the party upon which the affirmative of the damage issue is not ordinarily imposed, must bear the burden of proving noninsurability. This holding removes the burden of proof from a plaintiff who has ready access to privileged medical information and other facts necessary to prove insurability; instead, it places the burden on a defendant which would have a difficult task collecting evidence of noninsurability. I do not agree, and thus dissent.
COCHRAN and STEPHENSON, JJ., join in dissent.