Court Opinion

ID: 9530421
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:59:44.415412+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:06.651209
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE JONES, dissenting: I respectfully dissent. I agree with the majority that the trial court was presented with two contradictory versions of the facts leading to the misrepresentation contained in the reinstatement application that the deceased’s health was good and that he had not consulted or been treated by any physicians in the five years previous to the execution of the application. I also agree that it is undisputed that this misrepresentation was material to the company’s acceptance of the risk. (See Weinstein v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 389 Ill. 571, 60 N.E.2d 207.) However, I cannot agree with their conclusion that the trial court’s finding of fact that Mrs. Beck’s version was the true one was not clearly erroneous. My examination of the record convinces me that the trial court’s decision is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Hanson, 7 Ill. App. 3d 678, 288 N.E.2d 523. Agent John Brakeville basically testified that he received a call from Mrs. Beck concerning information she had received relative to reinstating the lapsed life policy of deceased. He told her how to complete the application, including the medical portion. She subsequently brought a signed application for reinstatement to his home, and he completed the form in accordance with Mrs. Beck’s representation that there were no changes in Mr. Beck’s health. I believe that this version was strongly corroborated by defendant’s exhibit one. That exhibit was a letter from the company, dated May 7,1971, that was sent to Mr. Beck at the address where, according to Mrs. Beck’s testimony, they resided at such time informing him that his policy had lapsed and that it could be reinstated by sending the company his premium check and a completed application. The letter shows that an application was enclosed. This exhibit lends credence to Agent Brakeville’s testimony that Mrs. Beck called in response to information she received concerning reinstating the policy and that she brought a signed application to him on or about May 12, 1975. Mrs. Beck testified only that she could not recall receiving the May 7 letter and application. I believe that the trial court clearly erred in discounting the support of the agent’s version supplied by this exhibit. In addition, Mrs. Beck’s testimony that Agent Brakeville could not have the application ready on May 12, 1971, when she paid the premium at his office seems improbable when one notes the minimal amount of items which must be recorded thereon: policy number; name of insured; amount paid with application; date and location; exceptions to the medical proviso or checking of “no exceptions” box. However, irrespective of whose version is believed concerning how the medical section came to be filled out by checking the “no exceptions” box, I am of the opinion that the trial court and the majority of this court are incorrect in holding for the plaintiff. In the last analysis, the application is that of the insured-applicant and the representations contained therein are adopted by him. He should be charged with knowledge of the contents of the application. It is undisputed that both the decedent and Mrs. Beck had an adequate opportunity to examine the application. They also were aware of Mr. Beck’s recent medical problems which were clearly relevant to his insurability. No proof of fraud is necessary to avoid the contract. It is well settled that in an equitable action for the cancellation of an insurance policy upon the ground that misrepresentations had been made as to facts material to the risk, it is not essential that the applicant should have wilfully made such misrepresentations knowing them to be false. They will avoid the policy if they are, in fact, false and material to the risk even though made through mistake or in good faith. (Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Tomasun, 358 Ill. 496; McMahon v. Continental Assurance Co., 308 Ill. App. 27, 30 N.E.2d 959. See also Alperin v. National Home Life Assurance Co., 32 Ill. App. 3d 261, 336 N.E.2d 365; Campbell v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America, 15 Ill. 2d 308, 155 N.E.2d 9.) No matter which state of facts is believed, this rule, in my opinion, controls the case. For the foregoing reasons, I would have reversed the trial court’s judgment and instructed the court to enter an order dismissing the complaint.