World Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Schultz

Citations

• 73 Ill. 586

Syllabus

<p>1. Life insurance—application. Where the application for a policy of life insurance contains a warranty that the applicant is not subject to dyspepsia, evidence that six months or a year and a half previously, while afflicted with an abscess, the applicant suffered from some degree of dyspepsia, is not sufficient to show a breach of the warranty and defeat a recovery upon the policy.</p> <p>2. Same — construction of questions in application. A question contained in an application for a policy of life insurance, whether the applicant had employed or consulted, individually, aphysician, will be construed to refer to an employment or consultation with reference to the application for life insurance, and not to the consultation of a physician at any time during the life of the applicant.</p> <p>3. Proof that an applicant for life insurance had, six months or a year and a half previous to making his application, employed a physician, will not be sufficient to avoid a policy issued on the application, although, in answer to a question in the application, the applicant may have stated that he had not consulted aphysician.</p>