Torbensen v. Family Life Insurance

California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 1958 No. Civ. 9325Published

Before: Schottky

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the insurance applicant's signed authorization constituted a valid waiver of the physician-patient privilege, allowing the insurer to introduce testimony regarding the insured's undisclosed medical history. Furthermore, the court affirmed that material misrepresentations in an insurance application justify denial of coverage, regardless of whether the misrepresented condition caused the insured's death.

Issues

Whether the insurance application contained a valid waiver of the physician-patient privilege.
Whether the insurer waived its right to rely on the applicant's misrepresentations by conducting its own medical examination.
Whether the applicant's false statements regarding his medical history were material to the risk.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It seems clear that the paragraph previously quoted was correctly construed by the trial court as a waiver of the privilege.”

“An insurance company is entitled to rely on the truthfulness of the answers given in the application.”

“It is not necessary that the misrepresentation have any causal connection with the death of the insured.”

SCHOTTKY, J.

This action was brought to recover on a contract of insurance on the life of William P. Torbensen. The insurer, Family Life Insurance Company, refused to pay the amount of the policy upon the ground that the deceased made incomplete and untrue statements in the application for the policy. The trial court denied recovery except for the premiums paid, and this appeal followed.

[403]

The facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the respondent insurer, disclose that on April 26, 1955, the insurer issued its policy of life insurance on the life of the decedent, William P. Torbensen. On August 20, 1955, the insured died of cancer. All premiums accrued to the date of death were paid. Margaret Torbensen, appellant herein, gave the insurer the required proof of death and demanded payment. The insurer refused payment on the ground that false statements were made to the examining physician in the application for insurance. At the time the deceased submitted to the physieial examination required by the insurer he was asked, among other questions, whether he was in good health and free from bodily impairment, to which he answered yes; whether he had consulted a physician in the past five years, to which the answer was that he had consulted a Dr. Wiseman for low blood pressure; whether or not he had ever had heart disease, to which the answer was no; and whether or not he had ever had an electrocardiogram taken, to which the decedent answered no. At the bottom of the questionnaire above the deceased’s signature appeared the following:

To Whom it May concern:

“I hereby authorize and request you to disclose any and all information and records concerning my condition when under observation by you, if requested to do so by Family Life Insurance Company. ...”

At the time the application was prepared the deceased was under the care of Dr. John Craig for an ailment which Dr-Craig had diagnosed as a heart condition. Dr. Craig testified that he had informed the deceased of his condition and had the deceased submit to an electrocardiogram and had prescribed during his course of treatment drugs which are used to relieve pain in heart disease.

Dr. Wiseman was contacted by the insurer and upon receipt of his reply the policy was issued as of the date of the application. The insurer did not know of any other doctors who had treated the insured but evidence disclosed that if the names of any other doctors had been known the insurer would have contacted them and made a more complete investigation

Torbensen v. Family Life Insurance

AI Brief

SCHOTTKY, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief