{
  "id": 1478699,
  "name": "McBath v. American Republic Insurance Company",
  "name_abbreviation": "McBath v. American Republic Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1945-05-21",
  "docket_number": "4-7560",
  "first_page": "764",
  "last_page": "768",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "208 Ark. 764"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "187 S.W.2d 954"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 433,
    "char_count": 6437,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.469,
    "sha256": "c979181886bfa228f1a32b6b4410e88cd176214121a0c4ce562bcccfc712020b",
    "simhash": "1:9b11fcf88e034ee5",
    "word_count": 1047
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:02:19.909104+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "McBath v. American Republic Insurance Company."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice.\nA jury was waived and the court gave judgment for the defendant insurance company on the main issue, but held that the plaintiff was entitled to the return of $75 paid as premiums on a health and accident policy issued January 1, 1942. In appealing, the insured contends there was no substantial evidence upon which the court could find that the contract was voidable because procured through false representations in relation to health. While other matters are discussed, fraudulent procurement is the principal issue.\nThe prayer was for $600 as cumulative amounts payable on the basis of $50 per month for disability caused by sickness.\nThe application, made on a form provided by the Company, contains questions and answers regarding Appellant McBath\u2019s health. By express terms answers were made warranties. Effect of the answers, written by the Company\u2019s soliciting agent, was a proposal for insurance based upon the applicant\u2019s \u201csound\u201d health. He had not been \u201csick or hurt\u201d during the preceding three-year period. A special policy provision is that certain diseases, including hypertension, are not covered unless the illness had its origin more than six months after the contract, or more than six months from the date of any reinstatement.\nMcBath admitted he was delinquent for \u201ca month or two.\u201d Reinstatement followed an application signed April 28, 1942. A warranty was that \u201c. . .1 am now in good health and I am not suffering from any injury or ailment.\u201d At that time McBath had in his possession the policy issued on his application of January 1.. The policy proper, as distinguished from the second application, contained the provision excluding illness caused from hypertension .originating less than six months after the contract, but the first application carried the warranty that McBath had not been sick or injured within three years. The January application is not abstracted; neither is it included in the record.\nAppellant\u2019s contention is that the Company\u2019s agent asked but two questions:\u2014\u201cWhat is your name, and who shall be listed as beneficiary?\u201d Other answers, says McBath, were gratuitously filled in by the agent; hence, says appellant, no warranties or representations were made.\nAlthough disclaiming responsibility for the false answers, appellant admitted he read the policy when it was received in February, 1942. He then added: \u201cI read all of the application that I could, but didn\u2019t discover any errors.\u201d\nAppellant insists he was not ill until December, 1942; but on cross examination his counsel stated: \u201c. . . for the purpose of the record we admit that McBath had been sick and had been in the hospital. There is no dispute about that. \u2019 \u2019\nAs a witness in his own behalf McBath admitted he was sent to a hospital in December, 1941. He was attended by a physician \u201c. . . who [hadn\u2019t given] me a prescription before this.\u201d The doctor informed McBath. he was run down:\u2014\u201csomething about my blood; either my red or my white corpuscles needed building up. I was in a weakened condition.\u201d When asked on cross examination if he was in good health when the application was made, McBath replied, \u201cI don\u2019t know. I presume that a man of my age\u2014he is presumed to have some little minor troubles. There are very few that don\u2019t.\u201d\nThere was this question: \u201cWould you have answered \u2018yes\u2019 if the Compairg\u2019s agent had asked if you were in good health?\u201d The answer was, \u201cI presume I would, because I was feeling pretty good. [As a pharmacist] I was able to do my work and wait on the customers.\u201d\nThe Company\u2019s agent testified he wrote the answers as appellant gave them.\nThe court found as a matter of fact that McBath became ill in 1940 and that there had been recurrences at various times. When hospitalized in March, 1940, the patient was suffering from hypertension. He was treated by Dr. R. I. Millard December 1, 1942, who said' he \u201c. . . gave a history of having had hypertension for some time.\u201d\nAppellant contends this Court has judicial knowledge that high blood pressure, or \u201chypertension,\u201d is not a disease, nor even a \u201cgrave ailment,\u201d as is stated in the finding of facts.\nResult of the Court\u2019s finding is a determination that McBath was subject to hypertension, and that it was of long standing.\nThere is no error in the record. In each of his declarations of disability\u2014made to procure benefits\u2014.McBath represented that he had never been affected by illness, disease, deformity, infirmity, or weakness other than \u201cacute multiple arthritis.\u201d He was claiming compensation for the latter. While this particular representation was not a part of the contract, it tends to disclose appellant\u2019s attitude in relation to the Company\u2014 a purpose to disclaim knowledge of any illness, and to arbitrarily treat his admitted \u201cindisposition\u201d as insignificant. This is at variance with a stipulation made as an incident to Dr. Millard\u2019s testimony, wherein it was agreed that McBath \u201chad\u201d high blood pressure when hospitalized in 1940. Another example of appellant\u2019s lack of frankness is found in his so-called \u201cproof of loss. \u2019 \u2019 When asked whether he had received \u2018 \u2018 any other\u2019 \u2019 medical treatment during the preceding five years, he answered \u201cNo.\u201d\n\u25a0Seemingly the tendency of medical authorities is to treat hypertension (commonly called high blood pressure) as merely symptomatic, supporting the conclusion that it is indicative of disease, or secondary either to a definite diagnosis, or an undetermined principal malady. But whatever the weight of scientific opinion may be, appellant\u2019s policy mentions hypertension and treats it as a status in respect of which, conditionally, there is no compensation. It follows that McBath concealed from the Company facts material to his insurability. The agent\u2019s testimony that the answers he wrote were given by McBath, and McBath\u2019s assertion that but two questions were asked, raised a factual issue. Bach was an interested witness, one representing the 'Company, and in a sense defending against the imputation of deceit; the other seeking to recover for his own benefit.\nIn these circumstances, and with the record disclosing conflicting evidence from which the court had to ascertain the facts, we cannot say that the evidence was not substantial.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Griffin Smith, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Oliver Moore, for appellant.",
      "Bob Bailey, Jr., and Bob Bailey, Sr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "McBath v. American Republic Insurance Company.\n4-7560\n187 S. W. 2d 954\nOpinion delivered May 21, 1945.\nOliver Moore, for appellant.\nBob Bailey, Jr., and Bob Bailey, Sr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0764-01",
  "first_page_order": 782,
  "last_page_order": 786
}