Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n v. Ficklin
Bryan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court as follows when overruling the motion: The learned counsel for the appellant have moved for a re-argument in this case. They base their motion on the supposition that the Court overlooked or disregarded certain clauses in the application for insurance. These clauses were quoted word for word in the statement prepared hy the Court, which preceded the opinion and which set forth the facts on which it was founded. The, Pennsylvania statute enacted that “whenever the application for a policy of life insurance contains a clause of warranty of the truth of the answers therein contained, no misrepresentation or untrue statement in such application made in good faith hy the applicant shall effect a forfeiture ******** unless such misrepresentation or untrue statement relate to some matter material to the risk. ” This is a most clear declaration that under the circumstances mentioned, the policy shall not he forfeited ; in other words, that it shall he a valid and binding contract.
It is part of the nature and essence of the warranty that it should have the eifect stated. It is a condition on which it is permitted to have existence and operation; as much so, as if it had been written in express words on the face of the policy. The contract of insurance must he made in subordination to the statute, and must have the legal effect which the statute attributes to it, and none other. Whatever form of words may he used, the legal effect of the warranty must he such as the statute impresses upon it.
It was the intention of the Legislature to prevent insurance companies from forfeiting policies hy means of warranties, as they had been previously construed, and to enforce the new construction set forth in the statute. These corporations 186 manifestly have not the legal capacity to make a contract which should give a construction to a warranty in opposition to that which the law has established. And, of course, they cannot, by virtue of any agreement, acquire the competency to do what the law forbids. It
This is a preview of Fidelity Mutual Life Ass'n v. Ficklin. About 50% of the opinion remains. Read the complete opinion in RecordCite.