{ "id": 1597611, "name": "Dorothy A. SPICER v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Spicer v. Colonial Penn Life Insurance", "decision_date": "1970-02-09", "docket_number": "5-5156", "first_page": "12", "last_page": "14", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "248 Ark. 12" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "449 S.W.2d 704" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "238 Ark. 981", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1734244 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/238/0981-01" ] }, { "cite": "205 S. W. 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1918, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "135 Ark. 559", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1571610 ], "year": 1918, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/135/0559-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 296, "char_count": 4000, "ocr_confidence": 0.819, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.49032862904919e-08, "percentile": 0.39926536257519263 }, "sha256": "fc31609b73b34f0a59c1de6b57087f97e1f418a93b5a1e2178801b6037e16295", "simhash": "1:a854dce0b820ccaf", "word_count": 660 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:47:57.001151+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Dorothy A. SPICER v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThe appellee, Colonial Penn Life, insured the life of the appellant\u2019s husband, Jim E. Spicer, for $10,000, under a group policy issued to the Disabled American Veterans, of which Spicer was a member. Spicer died a few months later, after four monthly premiums had been paid. The insurer denied liability on the ground that Spicer did not personally sign the application for the policy. The only question here is whether the circuit court was right in sustaining that defense to this action upon the policy.\nColonial Penn Life agreed with the D. A. V. to issue the group coverage regardless of the health of the applicants if at least ten percent of the D. A. V. membership joined in the plan by July 1, 1968. Leaflets explaining the plan and containing an application for insurance were sent to the D. A. V. members. There was no personal solicitation nor any medical examination of the applicants.\nSpicer applied for the insurance, truthfully stating in his application that he had multiple sclerosis. The application form contained a blank signature line, with this accompanying directive: \u201cSign Yo\u00fcr Name Here.\u201d At Spicer\u2019s request, and in his presence and that of his mother-in-law, Spicer\u2019s wife signed his name to the application, because Spicer\u2019s eyesight had begun to fail. In due course the company mailed a certificate of coverage to Spicer. Neither the promotional leaflet nor the certificate, which were the only documents received by Spicer, contained any request for a personal signature, other than the directive that we have quoted.\nIn denying liability after Spicer\u2019s death the company relied upon a provision in the master policy which fixed the effective date of coverage \u201cif the Company has received the individual application personally completed and signed by the proposed Insured,\u201d and the initial premium. It was stipulated that one of the company\u2019s underwriters would have testified that in view of the liberal offer of coverage to members of the D. A. V., all of whom have some disability, the requirement that the application be personally completed and signed b? the applicant was felt to be of extreme importance, and that if it had been known that Spicer did not complete and sign the application the company in good faith would not have issued the certificate of insurance.\nUpon the undisputed facts the insurer\u2019s defense must fail. In the absence of a specific requirement that-one\u2019s signature be written personally, as in the Statute of Wills, a signature made for a person in his presence and at his request is as effective as if written by the person himself. Chipman v. Perdue, 135 Ark. 559, 205 S. W. 892 (1918). Hence Mrs. Spicer\u2019s action in signing her husband\u2019s name satisfied the directive, \u201cSign Your Name Here.\u201d\nIn common fairness, if the company intended to attach exceptional importance to a personal signature, it should have inserted unmistakable notice to that effect in the form of application. In a very similar case the combined promotional leaflet and application purported to describe the coverage of the policy, with its exceptions. We held that the company could not introduce new limitations in the master policy that would have reduced the coverage that the applicant had a right to expect. Lawrence v. Providential Life Ins. Co., 238 Ark. 981, 385 S. W. 2d 936 (1965). In like manner, inasmuch as the application in this case gave no indication to the applicant that something more than a legally sufficient signature was required, no such extraordinary requirment could validly be inserted in the master policy, without notice to the insured.\nReversed, with judgment to be entered here in favor of the appellant in the amount of the policy, plus a 12% statutory penalty and a $2,000 attorney\u2019s fee.", "type": "majority", "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Frierson, Walker \u00e9r Snellgrove, for appellant.", "Barrett, Wheatley, Smith 6- Deacon, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Dorothy A. SPICER v. COLONIAL PENN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY\n5-5156\n449 S. W. 2d 704\nOpinion delivered February 9, 1970\nFrierson, Walker \u00e9r Snellgrove, for appellant.\nBarrett, Wheatley, Smith 6- Deacon, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0012-01", "first_page_order": 34, "last_page_order": 36 }