Richard P. Coughlin, administrator, vs. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1905-11-29

189 Mass. 538

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court sustained the plaintiff's exceptions and reversed the directed verdict for the defendant. The court held that in an endowment insurance policy, an age misstatement cannot be deemed to increase the risk of loss as a matter of law, and therefore the questions of intent to deceive and materiality must be submitted to the jury.

An insurance company issued a twenty-year endowment policy on a man's life in 1902. When the policyholder died, the company refused to pay the $500 benefit, arguing that the insured had misrepresented his age on the application—stating he was 22 when he was actually 30 years old. The company claimed that understating age in a life insurance contract automatically increases the risk of loss as a matter of law, which would void the policy without need for jury consideration.

The court disagreed with this blanket rule as applied to endowment policies. While recognizing that age misstatements can be material in regular life insurance contracts, the court reasoned that for an endowment policy covering a specific term (here, twenty years), one cannot assume as a legal certainty that a thirty-year-old is more likely to die before age fifty than a twenty-two-year-old would be before age forty-two. Accordingly, the questions of whether the misrepresentation was intentional and whether it actually increased the risk were matters for a jury to decide based on the evidence.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether age misrepresentation in an endowment policy is material as a matter of law
Whether questions of intent to deceive and risk increase are for judge or jury
Scope of the rule from Dolan v. Mutual Reserve Fund Association when applied to endowment policies

Procedural posture

The case comes before the appellate court following a directed verdict for the defendant entered by the Superior Court judge at the close of all evidence, raised on the plaintiff's exceptions.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

Lathrop, J.

This is an action upon a policy of insurance in the sum of $500, issued by the defendant upon the life of Lewis M. C. Lynch. The policy is dated June 21,1902, and is made payable at the expiration of twenty years, and if the insured should die within that time the amount insured is payable to the legal representatives of the insured.

At the trial in the Superior Court two questions were raised, the first as to an alleged misrepresentation as to the health of the insured at the time of the application, and the second as to an alleged misrepresentation as to the age of the insured at the time of the application. The judge, at the close of all the evidence, directed a verdict for the defendant; and the case is before us upon the plaintiff’s exceptions.

The defendant does not seek to justify the verdict upon the first ground mentioned, and we need not consider it. The remaining ground is however insisted upon. The insured in his application stated his “ age, nearest birthday,” to be “ 22 years.” At the trial it was shown by undisputed evidence that his age at the time of the application was thirty years. The defendant contends that the misrepresentation was a material one, and, as matter of law, increased the risk of loss, and avoided the policy. In support of this proposition the defendant relies upon the case of Dolan v. Mutual Reserve Fund Association, 173 Mass. 197, where it was held that the jury should have been instructed, as requested by the defendant, that “ an understatement of age increases the risk of loss in a life insurance contract as matter of law.” The opinion in this case was by Mr. Justice Knowlton. It is said in the opinion: “ It seems clear that death is likely to come more quickly to a person of a given age in sound health than if he were considerably younger, all other conditions being the same. It may be that in an insurance for a short term, or upon an endowment policy, the rule is not applicable to persons of every age and in all conceivable conditions.”

The policy before us is an endowment policy; and we are of opinion that it cannot be said, as matter of law, that a man is more likely to die between the ages of thirty and fifty than between the ages of twenty-two and forty-two, and therefore it cannot be said as matter of law that the misrepresentation was made with actual intent to deceive, or that it increased the risk of loss. These were questions for the jury.

Under the R. L. c. 118, § 21, the questions whether a misrepresentation or warranty “ is made with actual intent to deceive,” or “ the matter misrepresented or made a warranty increased the risk of loss,” are, as a general rule, for the jury. Levie v. Metropolitan Ins. Co. 163 Mass. 117. Hogan v. Metropolitan Ins. Co. 164 Mass. 448. To this rule certain exceptions have been established by our decisions. Thus, where the insured was in the habit of using intoxicating liquor to excess, it was held that a verdict for the defendant was properly ordered. Rainger v. Boston Mutual Life Association, 167 Mass. 109. So, in regard to consumption. Brown v. Grreenfield Life Association, 172 Mass. 498, 508. See also Dolan v. Mutual Reserve Fund Association, supra. The case at bar falls within the rule, and not within the exception.

W. H. Fox, for the plaintiff.

J. M. Morton, Jr., (R. A. Dean with him,) for the defendant.

Exceptions sustained.