{
  "id": 8571275,
  "name": "ROBERT L. SMITH v. THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Life Insurance Co.",
  "decision_date": "1961-11-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "569",
  "last_page": "571",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "255 N.C. 569"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 244,
    "char_count": 3890,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.567,
    "sha256": "42d6c1e9921b4ef1f2cee95c818179162d992ede12d6632f592b9715acaba291",
    "simhash": "1:faf8328f7365a043",
    "word_count": 664
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:58.690444+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "PaeKer, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "ROBERT L. SMITH v. THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HiggiNS, J.\nThe policy, the admissions in the answer, and the stipulations of the parties made out a case of liability for the face value of the policy. The defendant sought to escape liability on the ground that death resulted from suicide. Nothing in the evidence suggested suicide save the word inserted by pen in the \u201cProof of Loss\u201d which, for some reason, the plaintiff introduced. However, he testified he signed the paper in a hurry at the instance of the defendant\u2019s agent and at the time he signed it the word suicide was not on it.'The court submitted the suicide issue under proper instructions and the finding of the jury is conclusive.\nNo error.\nPaeKer, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this ease.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HiggiNS, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Claude F. Seila, Ted G. West, for plaintiff, appellee.",
      "Townsend & Todd, By: Folger Townsend, for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ROBERT L. SMITH v. THE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF VIRGINIA.\n(Filed 1 November, 1961.)\nInsurance \u00a7 26\u2014\nWhere the admissions in the pleadings and the stipulations of the parties make out a prima facie case of liability on a policy of life insurance, the fact that the proof of death introduced by plaintiff has the word \u201csuicide\u201d printed in ink under the heading \u201ccause of death\u201d does not entitle insurer to nonsuit or a peremptory instruction on the affirmative defense of suicide when plaintiff testifies that he signed the paper in a hurry at the instance of insurer\u2019s agent and that at that time the word \u201csuicide\u201d did not appear thereon.\nParker, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Pless, J., June, 1961, Term, Caldwell Superior Court.\nThe plaintiff, beneficiary, brought this action to recover on an in'-surance policy issued by the defendant on the life of plaintiff\u2019s wife, Katherine P. Smith. The defendant answered, admitting the execution, delivery of the policy, payment of the premium, and the death of the insured. It denied liability, however, upon the ground the insured\u2019s death resulted from suicide.\n\u201cFor the purpose of eliminating the issues not in controversy,\u201d the parties entered in the record the following: \u201cIt is stipulated and agreed that on or about the 10th day of February, 1958 the defendant issued its Policy No. L-10-K-1042497 issued on the life of Katherine P. Smith in the principal sum of $1,000.00; that Robert L. Smith, the plaintiff herein, was the primary beneficiary named in the said Policy; that Mrs. Smith died on or about the 30 day of August, 1959 at which time the premiums were paid.\u201d\nThe plaintiff offered the policy in evidence, testified that he had not been paid, and rested. The defendant likewise rested and moved for a directed verdict for the defendant. The motion was denied. Whereupon, the plaintiff asked that the case be reopened and he be permitted to offer further evidence. The court permitted this to be done over defendant\u2019s objection. The plaintiff offered \u201cthe Proof of Loss\u201d and testified he signed this paper brought to him by defendant\u2019s agent; that when he signed it it was blank except for his wife\u2019s name, and that there was nothing \u2018printed\u2019 on it. The photostat of the paper sent up with the record on appeal has the word \u201cSuicide\u201d printed in ink under the heading \u201cCause of Death.\u201d\nThe policy contained the following: \u201cIf insured shall die as a result of suicide, while sane or insane, within 2 years of the policy date, the liability of the company under this policy shall be limited to the premiums paid.\u201d\nAt the close of the evidence the defendant moved for nonsuit and for a peremptory instruction to answer the first issue, Yes. The court denied the motions. The jury answered the issues as here indicated: \u201c1. Did Mrs. Katherine P. Smith die as a result of suicide? Answer: No. 2. What amount is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Answer: $1,000.00.\u201d From the judgment on the verdict, the defendant appealed.\nClaude F. Seila, Ted G. West, for plaintiff, appellee.\nTownsend & Todd, By: Folger Townsend, for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0569-01",
  "first_page_order": 607,
  "last_page_order": 609
}