ELIZABETH L. VARTY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the evidence presented did not support the appellant's claim of fraud by the insurance agent.
The appellant sued to recover on an insurance policy for her deceased husband. The policy was issued but not delivered to the insured before his death…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Effective Date Of Insurance Policy cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This action, filed by the appellant, Elizabeth L. Varty, sought to recover upon an insurance policy which appellant alleges was issued by the appellee, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, upon the life of her husband, Robert L. Varty.
On or about June 3, 1957, Robert L. Varty executed an application for the policy, furnished by appellee’s agent. Following a favorable determination of his medical insurability by appellee, appellee on June 20, 1957, executed the policy and forwarded it from its New York office to its Detroit office for delivery to the insured. Insured died sud denly and unexpectedly on June 22, 1957, before delivery of the policy to him. The policy was retained undelivered by the appellee.
The application for the policy, signed by the insured, provided that no liability would be incurred until' the policy was delivered and the full first premium actually paid and accepted by the company. Appellant contended that appellee’s soliciting agent misrepresented to the insured at the time the application was signed that the policy would be effective when and if the insured successfully passed the medical examination. She seeks recovery on the basis of fraud on the part of the appellee’s agent.
Appellant’s evidence wholly failed to support this contention. We concur in the ruling of the District Judge in directing a verdict for the appellee.
The judgment is affirmed.