Moncur v. Western Life Indemnity Co.

Citations

• 269 Pa. 213
• 112 A. 476
• 1921 Pa. LEXIS 539

Syllabus

<p>Insurance — Life insurance — Application—Attaching to policy— Medical examiner's report — Act of May 11, 1881, P. L. 20 — Affidavit of defense — Warranty as to other insurance — Evidence — Practice Act of 1915 — Photographs.</p> <p>1. Where an application for life insurance, signed by the applicant, is followed by the medical examiner’s report, signed by the physician for the company, but not by the applicant, the latter paper need not be attached to the policy.</p> <p>2. The examiner’s report is not part of the “application as signed by the applicant,” within the meaning of the Act of May 11, 1881, P. L. 20.</p> <p>3. Where an applicant for life insurance warrants that he had never applied to any other company without receiving a policy of the exact kind and amount applied for, his warranty is broken where it appears that he had applied to another company for a policy, and accepted two policies of a different kind in place thereof, with his age rated up five years, and with an increased premium.</p> <p>4. Where, in such case, a question arises as to the identity of the plaintiff with the person who signed the application to the other company, a photostatic copy of the application may be admitted in evidence for comparison with an admittedly genuine signature of plaintiff, subject to the limitation in identification, admitted by the expert who made the comparison,- that the dynamic characteristics of the writing, could not be produced in the photostatic copy.</p> <p>5. In an action on the policy, an averment of the warranty in the affidavit of defense, with a further charge that the answers “were false and fraudulent,” is sufficient to permit the admission of evidence as to the two policies issued by the other company, under the Practice Act of 1915.</p> <p>6. In such case defendant is not required to particularize its evidence in the affidavit of defense.</p>