Court Opinion

ID: 9571437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:31:47.794683+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:26.718925
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
I think we need not concern ourselves about the group insurance policy and the fraud which the Craguns practiced in getting Ronald insured under that policy. The thing which seems to me to be controlling is his falsification in stating that he had terminated his employment as of *22the last day of February, 1970. He had never worked IS hours per week regularly for his father. In fact, the father testified in his deposition that for the year 1970 Ronald worked from zero hours to no more than 12 hours per week. Whatever work he did was without any remuneration and was done merely to assist his father from time to time as the occasion might arise.
Ronald never notified his father (his supposed employer) that he was terminating his services as of the last of February, 1970, and the relationship between father and son, whatever it might be, was the same after March 1, 1970, as it was prior thereto.
I think the securing of group coverage for Ronald was a fraud upon the company, and there was likewise fraud when the $10,000 policy was obtained. Even if the original fraud could not be used to defeat the coverage under the group policy, surely the repetition of the fraud to obtain an individual policy with a much higher coverage was a new fraud which could be used as a defense at least for the statutory two-year period.
I am not convinced that recovery could have been had even under the coverage of the group insurance policy. Aside from the fraud in originally placing Ronald under that policy, there was a further defense available to the company in that coverage would be afforded only to regularly employed employees who worked at least 15 hours per week; and if Ronald never complied with that provision, then he would not be covered.
I would affirm the trial court.