{
  "id": 8628292,
  "name": "GEORGE C. BUTLER, Administrator, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Butler v. New York Life Insurance",
  "decision_date": "1938-04-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "384",
  "last_page": "386",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "213 N.C. 384"
    }
  ],
  "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": "35 S. E., 246",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "126 N. C, 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658730
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/126/0166-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S. E., 679",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 143",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270056
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0143-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 S. E., 214",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 N. C., 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272223
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/153/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 S. E., 806",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 N. C., 367",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271963
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/163/0367-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "212 N. C., 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611120
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/212/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "44 S. E., 28",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8660366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0542-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 N. C., 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11278805
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/71/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 S. E., 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N. C., 685",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628831
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0685-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 S. E., 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 N. C., 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656072
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/185/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S. E., 404",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 702",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661072
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/0702-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 S. E., 744",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N. C., 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627268
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/211/0427-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S. E., 186",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N. C., 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609498
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 S. E., 796",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 N. C., 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8649636
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/96/0158-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 350,
    "char_count": 5031,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.088592411412518e-07,
      "percentile": 0.56507039599606
    },
    "sha256": "ef40be3399d65f8e2cbafc071cd6a96d7eed2c056a89d58873a7cdaedd11f229",
    "simhash": "1:9d80a0f6c301c820",
    "word_count": 897
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:08:52.368812+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "GEORGE C. BUTLER, Administrator, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nPlaintiff takes the position that the delivery of the policy, following receipt of the first premium, concluded the contract, in the absence of fraud, Grier v. Ins. Co., 132 N. C., 542, 44 S. E., 28, and that the provisions of 0. S., 6460 \u2014 the policy having been issued without medical examination \u2014 preclude a denial of liability except in case of fraud, Holbrook v. Ins. Co., 196 N. C., 333, 145 S. E., 609; and further, that plaintiff\u2019s evidence is sufficient to make out a prima facie case. Williamson v. Ins. Co., 212 N. C., 377.\nThe position of the defendant is that the evidence shows a conditional delivery of the policy which, was not met, and that no contract of insurance ensued. Gardner v. Ins. Co., 163 N. C., 367, 79 S. E., 806; Lancaster v. Ins. Co., 153 N. C., 285, 69 S. E., 214; Perry v. Ins. Co., 150 N. C., 143, 63 S. E., 679; Ray v. Ins. Co., 126 N. C, 166, 35 S. E., 246; Ormond v. Ins. Co., 96 N. C., 158, 1 S. E., 796; McCain v. Ins. Co., 190 N. C., 549, 130 S. E., 186, and cases cited.\nWithout making definite ruling upon the relative merits of these opposing positions as applied to the facts of the instant case, we think it is clear that plaintiff is in no position to insist upon a recovery. Undoubtedly there was a suppression of a material fact, i.e., that applicant was going to the hospital, when the premium was paid, which would have resulted in nondelivery of the policy but for such suppression. Wells v. Ins. Co., 211 N. C., 427, 190 S. E., 744; Hayes v. Ins. Co., 132 N. C., 702, 44 S. E., 404. Otherwise the case of Ins. Co. v. Grady, 185 N. C., 348, 117 S. E., 289, might apply. A suppressio veri by one whose duty it is to speak is equivalent to a suggestio falsi. Isler v. Brown, 196 N. C., 685, 146 S. E., 803; 10 R. C. L., 324.\nMoreover, it is conceded that the applicant consulted Dr. Parker and was treated by him for cancer between the date of the application and the delivery of the policy. This fact should have been communicated to the defendant. Whitley v. Ins. Co., 71 N. C., 480.\nThe record is not such as to call for a disturbance of the judgment of nonsuit.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Howard H. Hubbard for plaintiff, appellant.",
      "Rountree & Rountree for defendant, appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "GEORGE C. BUTLER, Administrator, v. NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.\n(Filed 13 April, 1938.)\n1. Insurance \u00a7 31a \u2014 Evidence held to disclose fraud in procuring delivery of policy issued without medical examination.\nWhen the evidence discloses that insured, in a policy issued without a medical examination, failed to disclose, at the time of mailing the initial premium, that she was going to a hospital, and that she failed to inform insurer that she had consulted a doctor and was treated for cancer between the date of the application and the delivery of the policy, the application providing that the policy should not be delivered in such case, a nonsuit in insurer\u2019s favor in plaintiff beneficiary\u2019s action on the policy is without error, since if insured had not suppressed the truth the policy would not have been delivered. O. S., 6460.\n2. Fraud \u00a7 2\u2014\nA suppressio veri by one whose duty it is to speak is equivalent to a suggestio falsi.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Cranmer, J., at November Term, 193?, of SAMPSON.\nCivil action to recover on a policy of life insurance.\nOn 13 November, 1933, Lela F. Butler made application to the New York Life Insurance Company for $1,000-policy of life insurance, payable to her estate.\nThe application is made a part of the policy and contains the following agreement:\n\u201cIt is mutually agreed as follows: (1) That the insurance hereby applied for shall not take effect unless and until the policy is delivered to and received by the applicant and the first premium thereon paid in full during his lifetime, and then only if the applicant has not consulted or been treated by any physician since the time of making this application.\u201d\nThe policy was issued, without medical examination, and delivered II December, 1933, in consequence of a letter written 15 December on behalf of applicant, enclosing cheek for premium and asking that policy be sent, as applicant was going away. The writer testified: \u201cI must have meant that Miss Butler was going to the hospital when I said in the letter she was going away,\u201d though this was not stated. In the meantime the applicant had consulted a physician on 1, 3, or 4 December, discovered that she had a cancer, and was taken to the hospital on 16 December. She died 28 May, 1934.\nThe defendant pleaded violation of the condition attached to the delivery of the policy, and, in addition, that it was secured by fraudulent misrepresentations and concealments.\nIn response to a question from the court, plaintiff\u2019s counsel stated that plaintiff could not refute the testimony concerning consultation by applicant and treatment of her by Dr. Parker on account of her ailment (cancer) on or about 1 and 3 or 4 December, 1933. Whereupon the court dismissed the action as in case of nonsuit.\nPlaintiff appeals, assigning errors.\nHoward H. Hubbard for plaintiff, appellant.\nRountree & Rountree for defendant, appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0384-01",
  "first_page_order": 448,
  "last_page_order": 450
}