Court Opinion

ID: 9662487
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:10:44.53165+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:40.007207
License: Public Domain

HYDE, J.
(dissenting). — I respectfully dissent and adopt as my dissent the dissenting memorandum of Commissioner Lozier in Division No. One, as follows:
I am unable to concur in Commissioner Coil’s opinion. It is clear, from the opinion, that if securing the hospital letter alone con'stituted “reasonable investigation” which gave defendant information which could have caused a reasonable man to believe in good faith that there was no liability under the policy, defendant was entitled to a directed verdict. It is my view that "Weaverling reasonably could have believed, after examination of the hospital letter alone, that plaintiff knew or should have known that he had some type of arthritis. This, because the letter stated that a final diagnosis, at the time of plaintiff’s first release from the hospital, was “hypertrophic arthritis.” It seems to me that it was perfectly reasonable -for Weaverling to infer that this final diagnosis had been communicated to plaintiff prior to his release. If such was a reasonable inference, then it was also reasonable for Weaverling to believe in good faith:' (1) That plaintiff was aware of this “hypertrophic arthritis” condition when he executed the application; and (2) that the “hypertrophic arthritis” condition did actually contribute to plaintiff’s disability. The latter, because the hospital letter stated that the low back injury.was superimposed upon a pre-existing arthritic condition of the spine.
Leedy, C.J., and Storckman, J., concur.