Skip to main content
· 7/8/1916

Farragher v. Knights & Ladies of Security

Citations

  • 98 Kan. 601
  • 159 P. 3
  • 1916 Kan. LEXIS 139

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Insurance — Fraternal—Application—Circumcision—Physician—Consultation — No Intentional Concealment — Company Liable. In an action to recover upon a beneficiary certificate the defense was that the insured made false and fraudulent representations in his answers to questions asked by defendant’s medical examiner, in which deceased stated that he had not consulted or been treated by any physician or surgeon during the previous five years for any illness, disease or injury, and had never undergone any surgical operation. Within a year previous he had been circumcised by a physician, who on later occasions dressed the wound, and who testified that, in his opinion, the insured was in perfect health at the time, and that the circumcision was performed for sanitary purposes. There was proof that the death of the insured resulted from a disease which had no relation to the circumcision, and physicians and surgeons testified that they did not regard circumcision as an operation. Defendant’s medical examiner testified that if he had been informed of the fact he might not have considered it serious enough to mention in the application. Upon these facts and others stated, in the opinion, the finding of the trial court that defendant failed to show the intentional suppression of any fact or circumstance which deceased naturally supposed would tend to influence defendant in passing upon his application, and that plaintiff is entitled to recover, will not be disturbed.</p> <p>2. Same — Application—Untruthful Answers — Policy—Absolutely Literal Interpretation Impossible — Bona Fides. It will not do to place an absolutely literal interpretation on the provisions in an application and policy of life insurance with respect to untruthful answers. There must not be evasion, fraud or suppression of facts; there must be absolute good faith in the conduct of the applicant; but where the evidence shows there has been no evasion, no purpose to conceal any

Judges: Porter

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.