{
  "id": 8610808,
  "name": "FLORA E. PUGH v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pugh v. Prudential Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1937-11-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "372",
  "last_page": "373",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "212 N.C. 372"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "173 S. E., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 7",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628340
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0007-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S. E., 496",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 179",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625394
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0179-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 S. E., 609",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 333",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8626654
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0333-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S. E., 123",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629719
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0257-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S. E., 349",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "206 N. C., 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629818
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/206/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S. E., 671",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623945
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0130-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 257,
    "char_count": 4084,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.492,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20715840962156482
    },
    "sha256": "e2fd3092800506791d84b7e6738fee477efe107bd2cc9187bed53a1448a41010",
    "simhash": "1:9ffcd616dfe1981d",
    "word_count": 692
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:43.466662+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "FLORA E. PUGH v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stagy, C. J.\nIt is freely conceded by tbe defendant that as tbe policy in suit does not exceed $5,000 and was issued without medical examination of tbe insured, it can take no advantage of \u201cany misrepresentation as to tbe physical condition of tbe applicant,\u201d in tbe absence of fraud. C. S., 6460; Eckard v. Ins. Co., 210 N. C., 130, 185 S. E., 671; Headen v. Ins. Co., 206 N. C., 270, 173 S. E., 349; Potts v. Ins. Co., 206 N. C., 257, 174 S. E., 123; Holbrook v. Ins. Co., 196 N. C., 333, 145 S. E., 609.\nTbe position of tbe defendant is that tbe policy is void because of representations, falsely made, which do not relate to tbe physical condition of tbe applicant, but which were material to tbe risk, to wit, tbe one pertaining to tbe attendance of a physician, and tbe other to tbe amount of time lost from work through illness during tbe last three years. Inman v. Woodmen of the World, 211 N. C., 179, 189 S. E., 496; Potts v. Ins. Co., supra. Compare Anthony v. Protective Union, 206 N. C., 7, 173 S. E., 6.\nWithout making definite ruling as to whether tbe representations in question relate directly or indirectly to tbe physical condition of tbe applicant, we think it proper to bold that as they were \u201cdeclarations in lieu of medical examination,\u201d made at tbe instance of tbe defendant, they should be regarded as coming within the purview of C. S., 6460.\nIn this view of tbe case it follows that tbe verdict and judgment should be upheld, which will accordingly be done.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stagy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. V. Wilson and Moser & Miller for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "J. A. Spence for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "FLORA E. PUGH v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 3 November, 1937.)\nInsurance \u00a7 31a \u2014 Where application denominates answers declarations in lieu of medical examination, such answers come within purview of . C. S., 6460.\nIn the application for the policy in suit, which was issued without a medical examination, insured answered a number of questions under the heading \u201cDeclarations in Lieu of Medical Examination,\u201d including questions as to whether applicant had been attended by a physician during the prior three years and as to time lost from wort through illness during that period. Insurer contended that the answers to these two questions constituted material misrepresentations which did not relate to the physical condition of applicant, and that therefore insurer was entitled to avoid the policy without showing fraud. Held: The answers to the questions were denominated by insurer declarations made in lieu of medical examination, and therefore come within the purview of C. S., 6460, and under the provisions of the statute insurer is not entitled to cancellation of the policy in the absence of fraud.\nAppeal by defendant from Alley, J., at February Special Term, 1937, of RANDOLPH.\nCivil action to recover on a policy of life insurance.\nOn 19 November, 1934, the defendant issued a $1,000 policy of insurance on the life of Mattie Marguerite York, payable to plaintiff as beneficiary. The policy was issued and delivered without medical examination of the insured under authority of C. S., 6460. The insured died 28 January, 1935, and it is admitted that all premiums were duly paid thereon.\nIn the'written application a large number of questions were answered by the insured under the heading: \u201cDeclarations in Lieu of Medical Examination.\u201d\nDefendant alleges that many of these answers were \u201cmisrepresentations as to the physical condition of the applicant,\u201d fraudulently made, which render the policy void; and further, that at least two of them\u2014 first, as to whether she had been \u201cattended by a physician in the past three years,\u201d and second, as to the amount of time she had \u201clost from work through illness during the last three years\u201d \u2014 were material to the risk, did not relate to her physical condition, were false, and therefore vitiate the policy.\nThe jury found that the defendant had not been induced to .issue and deliver the policy \u201cby reason of any false and fraudulent misrepresentation.\u201d\nFrom judgment on the verdict defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nJ. V. Wilson and Moser & Miller for plaintiff, appellee.\nJ. A. Spence for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0372-01",
  "first_page_order": 442,
  "last_page_order": 443
}