Court Opinion

ID: 9816744
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 03:31:53.330868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:10.374290
License: Public Domain

(Decided April 13, 1934.)
On Application for rehearing.
On considering the application for rehearing in this case, we have examined the bill of exceptions on the question of the evidence concerning waiver of answers in the application, and what the company would have done about issuing the policy had it known the answers were untrue.
It must be borne in mind that this proposition as a defense must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Had the questions and answers been admitted they would not have had any probative value. There is no showing that the witnesses were qualified to answer the questions, the one being merely the local medical examiner for the company, and the other the local agent. How it can be claimed that these witnesses could testify as to what the company would do as to waiving untrue answers we do not understand.
The single question asked of the medical examiner, *165claimed in the application for rehearing to be pertinent, appears in the record, and that question is:
“Q. Now, doctor, if it had been reported to the Company that this man was suffering from kidney trouble, high blood pressure and the eye defect mentioned, would the company have issued this policy of insurance?”
This is not the question for determination. The question necessary to prove was, had the company known the answers to the questions in the application were untrue would it have issued the policy? None of the questions were properly presented, and most of the proffers were not responsive, and, as above stated, it is not shown that the two witnesses were qualified to answer the questions had they been properly asked and properly tendered. The court, therefore, adheres to its former opinion, and the application for rehearing is denied.

jRehearing denied.

Hamilton, P. J., and Eoss, J., concur.