PACIFIC MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Leonard C. MILLER, Appellee

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit1955-12-08No. No. 12433

228 F.2d 889

Summary · law.co

Holding. The judgment for Miller is affirmed because the District Court correctly applied Michigan law protecting physician-patient privilege, properly instructed the jury on the construction of insurance applications and the requirements for policy rescission, and the jury verdict was supported by the record.

Pacific Mutual Life Insurance appealed a judgment in favor of Leonard Miller on a life insurance policy claim. The case involved a conflict between federal precedent and Michigan state law regarding the validity of waivers of physician-patient privilege in insurance applications. The court had previously upheld such waivers, but after the Supreme Court decided Erie Railroad v. Tompkins, which required federal courts to apply state law in diversity cases, this court reversed course and followed Michigan's protection of the physician-patient privilege.

The District Court properly instructed the jury that physicians who treated Miller during 1948 could not testify about their examinations, treatment, or conversations with him due to Michigan's physician-patient privilege statute. The court also correctly charged the jury that application statements must be construed favorably to the insured, and that false statements void a policy only if made with intent to deceive or if they materially affected the insurer's risk assessment. The jury verdict was supported by conflicting evidence on the material issues.

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

Key issues

Validity of waivers of physician-patient privilege in insurance applications
Application of state law in federal diversity cases after Erie Railroad v. Tompkins
Standards for rescission of insurance policies based on false application statements
Interpretation of insurance application answers in favor of the insured

Procedural posture

Pacific Mutual appealed a District Court judgment entered in favor of the insured Miller on an insurance policy claim.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

majority opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case came on to be heard upon the record and briefs and oral argument of counsel;

And it appearing that this appeal arises out of a judgment in an action upon an insurance policy;

And it appearing that the beneficiary under a life insurance policy, together with the assured, in the application for the policy executed a written waiver of the physician-patient privilege;

And it appearing that this court in the case of Lawrence v. Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company, 6 Cir., 91 F.2d 381, held that such a waiver was valid and refused to follow the holding in the Supreme Court of Michigan, Gilchrist v. Mystic Workers of the World, 188 Mich. 466, 154 N.W. 575;

And it appearing that under the decision in Erie Railroad Company v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188, announced subsequent to the decision in the Lawrence case, supra, this court followed the decision in Gilchrist v. Mystic Workers of the World, supra; Ranger, Inc., v. Equitable Life Assurance Society of United States, 6 Cir., 196 F.2d 968, 972;

And it appearing that in the instant case the District Court correctly charged the jury that under Comp.Laws Mich. 1948, § 617.62, the several doctors with whom the assured consulted during 1948 were not permitted to testify as to the results of their examination of him or the treatment given him, or as to their conversations with him during the time that the relationship of physician and patient existed between them;

And it appearing that the court correctly chargéd the jury that under the law of Michigan the questions and answers in an application for insurance are to be construed liberally in favor of the insured. Northwestern National Life Insurance Co. v. Nalbant, 6 Cir., 119 F.2d 725; McKinney v. Liberty Life Insurance Co. of Illinois, 263 Mich. 490, 493, 248 N.W. 881;

And it appearing that under Comp.Laws Mich.1948, § 522.17, the falsity of any statement in the application for any policy covered by this chapter shall not bar the right to recovery thereunder unless such false statement was made with actual intent to deceive or unless it materially affected either the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by the insurer, and that the court correctly charged the jury in substance that, if the answers of the assured to the questions in his application were false and were made with actual intent to deceive, or if the answers materially affected the acceptance of the risk or the hazard assumed by appellant, such answers would void the policy;

And it appearing that the evidence upon the material issues of the case was in conflict and was rightly submitted to the jury, Turner v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Association, 316 Mich. 6, 19, 29, 24 N.W.2d 534, and that the record supports the verdict of the jury;

And no reversible error appearing in the record;

It is ordered that the judgment herein be and it hereby is affirmed upon the grounds and for the reasons stated in the opinion of the District Court on appellant’s motion for a new trial.