Galloway v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

Citations

• 112 Kan. 720
• 212 P. 887
• 1923 Kan. LEXIS 471

Syllabus

<p>SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.</p> <p>1. Life Insurance — Finding—Retroflexed Uterus Not a Disease — Conflicting Evidence. A finding by the jury that a retroflexed uterus, from which symptoms had developed, did not amount to a disease is warranted where there is medical testimony tending to support each side of the question.</p> <p>2. Same. Where an applicant for life insurance, who knew she had a retro-flexed uterus, accompanied by painful symtoms, stated that she had no uterine or ovarian disease, proof that according to correct medical usage these conditions amount to a disease does not necessarily establish fraudulent misrepresentation on her part.</p> <p>3. Same — Questions in Application — Answers Not Conclusive Proof of Fraudulent Misrepresentation. Where an applicant for life insurance to the question, “On what dates and for what complaints have you been attended by a physician during the past three years?” answered “Doctor Watkins, Farmington, Mo. Influenza, Jan., 1920,” conclusive proof of fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment on her part does not result from the fact that at about the same time she had also been treated by another doctor (an osteopath) for the same trouble, which was primarily influenza, accompanied by a retroflexed uterus.</p> <p>4. Same. Where an applicant for life insurance returned an affirmative answer to the question, “Are you now in good health?” fraudulent misrepresentation on her part is not necessarily established by the fact that she had within a few months received treatment for a retroflexed uterus and had been advised that an operative procédure might be required for its correction.</p> <p>5. Same — Rulings of Court Nonprejudicial. Various rulings in a case where the issue was whether fraudulent misrepresentations had been made by an applicant for life insuranace are held to have been correct or at all events nonprejudicial.</p>