Court Opinion

ID: 9545730
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:18:22.171858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:26.333822
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Moore
dissenting.
• ■.I am unable to agree with the conclusions of the majority opinion that there is an insufficiency of proof to sustain thecontention of the insurance .company that misrepresentations sufficient to void the policy were made in the application for coverage.
As I view the facts, the statement in the application that insured had not been attended by a physician for treatment within three years prior to the date of the application, was very definitely shown to be false. It appears from the statement of Dr. Altieri that he first *436became acquainted with the insured on April 19, 1949. His statement was that he had been the “attending physician” since that date. In my judgment his statement establishes conclusively that the last illness of the applicant had already begun on April 19, 1949. The application for insurance was made on December 20, 1950, and the insured died forty days thereafter. The cause of death was “(1) arteriosclerotic heart disease with cardiac decompensation (2) generalized arteriosclerosis with malignant hypertension,” and even a layman’s knowledge concerning such a cause of death would lead only to the conclusion that the statement in the application explaining the physical 'condition of the insured was designed to mislead, or, if innocently made, was not a true statement of the facts.
When an applicant for insurance, in explaining his condition, makes an assertion that he has had a slight touch of high blood pressure over a period of fifteen years which “is kept normal by diet at present,” knowing, as the applicant in this case did know, that no. medical examination was required of him, the insurance company should have a perfect right to defend upon the ground of misrepresentation where the cause of death is admitted to be that which is present in this case.
The majority opinion fails to mention the case of Capitol Life Insurance Company v. Thurnau et al., 130 Colo. 345, 275 P. (2d) 940; or that of Germania Life Insurance Co. v. Klein, 25 Colo. App. 326, 137 Pac. 73, both of which contain highly pertinent language applicable to the facts in this case.
For these reasons I must respectfully dissent.