Court Opinion

ID: 9680552
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:33:39.69502+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.226900
License: Public Domain

LAWRENCE G. CRAHAN, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I concur fully in the disposition of Appellant’s first five points. I cannot agree that the record before us establishes a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Decedent knew his statements on the paramedical questionnaire portion of the application for life insurance were false.
Appellant offered no evidence to controvert the following facts, which must therefore be accepted as true. ITT Commercial Fin. Corp. v. Mid-America Marine Supply Corp., 854 S.W.2d 371, 376 (Mo. banc 1993). In 1995, Decedent’s application for disability insurance was rejected by Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Northwestern”) when it learned that he had tested positive for cocaine use in connection with an application for insurance through another company in 1994. At that time, Decedent disputed the test result and denied he had ever used cocaine.
In 1996, Decedent began discussing the possibility of acquiring additional life insurance with Christopher Wright, a family friend and an insurance agent under contract with the John M. Qualy Agency (“Qualy”). Decedent subsequently signed an application form for life insurance with defendant Northwestern dated December 10, 1996. There is no dispute that Decedent’s signature appears on the application form.
On December 7, 1996, Decedent appeared for a paramedical examination in Grand Rapids, Michigan, conducted by Michele Chiaramonte. During the examination, Decedent answered questions in a paramedical questionnaire relating to his health and medical treatment history. After answering the questions, he signed the paramedical questionnaire, declaring that “my answers and statements are correctly recorded, complete and true to the’best of my knowledge and belief.” There is no dispute that Decedent’s signature is on the paramedical questionnaire.
The application form included questions numbered 1-30 and the paramedical questionnaire included questions numbered 31-42. The application form and the paramedical questionnaire combined to form the complete application (“the Application”) that was submitted to Northwestern for consideration.
In response to a question on the application form about whether he had ever been denied insurance, Decedent admitted that he had been previously denied insurance by Northwestern based on a blood test that was positive for cocaine. In explanation, Decedent submitted a letter to Mr. Wright stating that he had attended a bachelor party where he was “exposed to some highly undesirable contraband.” According to Decedent, this one situation was the reason for the test result and he no longer associated with the others involved. In response to a question about whether he had seen any physician or received any treatment within the preceding five years, Decedent admitted having seen Dr. John Edelman for back problems and having been prescribed “muscle relaxors” in 1995. In several other responses, however, Decedent failed to disclose his more recent history of drug use.
Question 32 of the paramedical questionnaire asked:
*399Are you taking medication or drugs (legal or illegal, prescription or nonprescription) for any reason? If yes, list and explain.
_YES _NO
In response to Question 32, Decedent responded “no.”
Question 34.c. of the paramedical questionnaire asked:
In the last 10 years have you used any tranquilizers, sedatives or narcotic drugs?
_YES __ NO
In response to Question 34.c., Decedent responded “no.”
Question 34.d. of the paramedical questionnaire asked:
In the last 10 years, have you used legally prescribed drugs in excess of dosages prescribed by a physician or medical practitioner?
_YES __ NO
In response to Question 34.d., Decedent responded “no.”
Decedent’s responses to Questions 32, 34c and 34d were false.
Dr. Robert DeJonge is a physician in private practice in Michigan. Decedent was a patient of Dr. DeJonge. According to the testimony and medical records of Dr. DeJonge, prior to December 10, 1996, the date of the paramedical questionnaire, Decedent was prescribed and using the fol-
lowing tranquilizers and narcotics:
April 3,1996: Vicodin ES (20 tablets), Valium 10 mg (5 tablets)
Valium 10 mg (16 tablets) April 4,1996:
Vicodin ES (20 tablets), Valium 10 mg (5 tablets) April 15, 1996:
Valium 10 mg (12 tablets) June 6, 1996:
Valium 10 mg (1 tablet) July 8,1996:
Valium 10 mg (16 tablets) July 15,1996:
Vicodin ES (12 tablets), Valium 10 mg (30 tablets) July 30,1996:
Vicodin ES (12 tablets), Valium 10 mg (30 tablets) Sept. 20,1996:
Oct. 8,1996: Valium 10 mg (30 tablets)
Dr. John Edelman is also a physician in private practice in Michigan who treated Decedent. According to Dr. Edelman’s testimony and medical records, in the two months prior to completing the Application, Decedent was prescribed and using the following tranquilizers and narcotics:
October 9,1996: Vicodin ES (40 tablets), Valium 10 mg (50 tablets)
October 17, 1996: Percodan (15 tablets)
October 31,1996: Vicodin (12 tablets)
In addition to the medical records and testimony of Dr. DeJonge and Dr. Edel-man, pharmacy records establish that, in the nine months prior to December 10, 1996, Decedent also obtained prescriptions for the following drugs:
March 24,1996: Valium 10 mg (20 tablets)
March 28,1996: Loranzepan 2 mg (10 tablets), Ultram 50 mg (20 tablets)
April 11,1996: Hydrocodone (5 tablets), Ultram 50 mg (30 tablets)
October 30,1996: Valium 10 mg (50 tablets) Vicodin ES and Percodan are narcotics. Valium is a tranquilizer.
On October 17, 1996, when he prescribed Percodan for Decedent, Dr. Edelman advised Decedent that only one tablet of the drug should be taken every six to eight hours. Despite this direction, in a letter dated October 18, 1996, Decedent admitted that he was taking more than three tablets of Percodan. In that same letter to Dr. Edelman, Decedent evaluated the efficacy of the various drugs he was taking.
The medical records also show that on or about November 1, 1996, Decedent took an empty Vicodin prescription bottle to a pharmacy and attempted to persuade the pharmacist to refill it with Vicodin ES, without a prescription. Decedent also contacted a pharmacy to ask whether using Tagamet would keep valium and Vicodin in his system longer.
Decedent admitted to Dr. DeJonge that he had once taken 50 valium at one time. Dr. DeJonge felt that Decedent had used large doses of narcotics inappropriately during his care of him. On October 29, 1996, Dr. Edelman recommended to Decedent that he go to a substance abuse clinic *400because of concern over his extensive use of prescription drugs.
In response to defendant Northwestern’s motion for summary judgment, Appellant did not dispute any of the above evidence regarding the nature and quantity of drugs prescribed for and used by Decedent in the nine months prior to completing the Application. In her sixth point of error, however, Appellant claims that the foregoing evidence was insufficient to establish no genuine dispute that Decedent knew his answers to questions 32, 34c. and 34d. were false. Appellant notes that he did disclose that he had been seen at Blod-gett Medical Center for a sore back in 1995 and had been prescribed “muscle re-laxors.” She claims, however, that the evidence does not establish that Decedent was conversant with the classification of particular medications as “tranquilizers,” “sedatives” or “narcotics.” Thus, Appellant urges, there is a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Decedent was familiar with these technical terms as employed in the questionnaire.
Although there was ample evidence that Decedent was extremely knowledgeable and sophisticated about the types of drugs he was using (including requests for particular types of narcotics), Appellant’s argument is ultimately a red herring. Nothing in Question 32 required Decedent to distinguish between the classification of various drugs. Question 32 asked whether Decedent was taking medicine or drugs, legal or illegal, prescription or nonprescription for any reason. It did not matter whether the drugs were tranquilizers, sedatives or narcotics. Decedent answered “no.” Coupled with his disclosure that he had been prescribed “muscle relaxors” in 1995, this amounted to an affirmative representation that he was no longer taking any medication of any kind. Moreover, the extensive variety of medications Decedent was taking at the time he responded to the questionnaire were not muscle rela-xors prescribed by anyone at Blodgett Medical Center. They were tranquilizers and narcotics prescribed by Dr. Edelman in response to Decedent’s complaints of neck pain.1
Likewise, question 34. d. did not require Decedent to be familiar with whether drugs were “tranquilizers,” “sedatives” or “narcotics.” Question 34.d. asked, “In the past 10 years, have you used legally prescribed drugs in excess of dosages, prescribed by a physician or medical practitioner.” Appellant does not even argue that there is a genuine issue as to whether Decedent gave a false answer to this question, nor will the record support such an argument. Dr. Edelman testified that when he finally agreed to prescribe Perco-dan for Decedent, he expressly instructed Decedent not to take more than one tablet at a time every six to eight hours. The very next day Decedent informed Dr. Edelman that he had taken three tablets at once. Decedent also admitted to Dr. DeJonge that he had taken 50 valium tablets at once, an amount that no one could reasonably believe was a prescribed amount. Thus, Decedent had to know that his answer to Question 34.d. was false.
Appellant’s remaining contentions, not reached by the majority, are equally without merit but need not be discussed herein. I would affirm the judgment.

. Indeed, elsewhere on the form, Decedent did disclose that he suffered a herniated disc confirmed by an MRI ordered by Dr. Edel-man. That disclosure, however, indicates only “exercises given” and makes no mention of Dr. Edelman prescribing any drugs.