Court Opinion

ID: 9832166
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 21:41:02.079363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:43:43.353736
License: Public Domain

On Rehearing.
It is asserted we erred in holding the burden rested upon appellant to show the assured was not in sound health upon the date of the policy. This ruling is in accord with Southern Surety Co. v. Benton (Tex. Com. App.) 280 S. W. 551.
It is'further asserted we erred in holding that the incontestability clause of the policy was not of the character -that would relieve appellant from complying with article 5044, R. S. Appellant’s contention in this connection is that perforce of article 4732 (3), R. S., the policy was not contestable for fraud after the lapse of two years from its date; that article 4732 (3), as a matter of law, was read into and became a part of the policy, and. therefore appellant was under no duty to give the notice required by article 5044.
It is true the reservation of the right to contest for fraud after two yéars was invalid and ineffective (American, etc., v. Tabor, 111 Tex. 155, 230 S. W. 397); but this does not alter the fact that the contract by its terms reserved the right to contest for fraud after the lapse of two years from the policy date and attempted to do what is forbidden by article 4732 (3). We therefore adhere to the view that such an incontestability clause in an insurance policy is not the kind contemplated by article 5049. Therefofce article 5044 was applicable.
Nor did we err in the state of the pleadings in holding that it was unnecessary to prove that demand for payment was made June 14, 1927 (Adams v. Williams, 112 Tex. 469, 248 S. W. 673; Ogden & Johnson v. Bosse, 86 Tex. 336, 24 S. W. 798); but whether this view be correct or not is immaterial, for it was proven that demand for payment was made by letter from appellee’s attorneys of-date June 14, 1927.
Overruled.