Court Opinion

ID: 9825091
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 12:03:41.828814+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:24.006073
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
The trial was had on the general issue; plea 2 of nondelivery during good health and life of assured, and denial of payment of the first premium; and plea 3 avers nonpayment of the first premium and that the policy was not unconditionally delivered to assured during life and while in good health. Appellant had the benefit of the issue of payment vel non of the first premium, if not under the general issue, under plea 3; and the court in the oral charge fully instructed the jury on this issue.
The other phase of pleas (pleas 6 and 8, for example) to which demurrers were sustained, was that the change suggested in the application was proposed by the assured and the true fact stated to the insurance company’s agent. Appellant’s plea did not set out what the alleged incorrect statement was or the amendment made; this should have been done if it was to be made a part of the policy to be binding on assured. Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Butler, 221 Ala. 501, 129 So. 466. It is not averred that a subscription thereof was required to the amendment to be attached to the policy by the defendant, and in fact so attached.
If the nature of the amendment made by insurer had been declared in the pleading, it would have appeared that the policy was reissued and delivered by defendant company with full knowledge of the fact in question. It could not have then been averred or insisted that there was any misrepresentation as to any material fact, or any breach of warranty in reference to such fact, as to avoid the policy to which the application was required to be attached to become a part thereof. If the phase containing such averments be stripped of the alleged “amendment application” and “health certificate,” the features of these pleas would have been “nondelivery” and “nonpayment of first premium,” which latter defenses are fully embraced in the pleas to which demurrers were overruled.
The feature of the group of pleas containing averments of the required “health certificate,” is that they fail to aver that the same was required before delivery by the terms of the policy, Independent Life Ins. Co. v. Butler, supra; and, as to the “amended application,” the feature of the pleas is that it af*353firmatively appears that such amendment was attached to and redelivered by defendant with the policy to plaintiff’s husband, without the signature of assured. It is not averred in the pleas that execution of the amended application as attached to the policy was a condition precedent to the effectiveness of the policy.
Moreover, an inspection of the policy shows that the nature of the amendment made was not such as to avoid the policy, and, for aught that appears in the pleas, the alleged amendment to the application was not as to a material fact or particular part thereof. The defendant introduced in evidence the facts sought to be set up in these pleas as to nonpayment of first premium, amendment of application, health certificate, and the court instructed the jury on delivery or nondelivery of the policy. We find no reversible error.
The application for rehearing is overruled.
ANDEESON, O. J., and SATEE and BEOWN, JJ., concur.