Court Opinion

ID: 9812548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:41:07.829527+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:11.191610
License: Public Domain

Clark, C. J.,
dissenting: Under tbe statute any statement or description in tbe application, or in tbe policy itself, must be deemed merely representations and not warranties, and “a representation, unless material or fraudulent, will not prevent a recovery under tbe policy.” C. S., 6289.
Therefore, it will not defeat a recovery tbat a representation is untrue unless it is material or fraudulent. Tbe jury have found tbat tbe representations in this case were untrue in tbat tbe assured stated tbat be bad not bad spitting of blood or Spanish influenza, but they also found tbat this was not fraudulently done, and they found as a fact (issue 19) tbat “tbe policy was not obtained by false and fraudulent representations or concealments.”
*548The jury having found that the statements were not fraudulent, it should have been left to the jury to pass upon the question whether they were material. There are eases where parties have had the spitting of blood or Spanish influenza, but it was not material to the risk, for these matters are not necessarily fatal. That was a matter of fact which should have been found by the jury upon sufficient evidence, and unless so found, it, could not prevent a recovery. ¥e are judges of law, but not judges of fact; we are doctors of law, but not doctors of medicine.
The jury, as judges of the facts, alone could determine whether the misrepresentation which they find is not fraudulent was material or not, and they could have been aided in such finding by the testimony of doctors who were conversant with such matters. The case should go back that the jury should pass upon the issue whether or not the untrue statement was material to the risk or not. The judge had no authority to determine this, and the jury have not done so.