Caseflicks

Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit • 1969

Marcella A. MacKenzie v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

411 F.2d 781 | 1969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12117

Full access

Unlock the video and quiz

The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.

Create an account Log in

Takeaway

In short, this case holds that an insurance applicant must disclose a material health change learned after applying but before policy delivery; silence can void coverage even without proof of fraud.

Background

Jerome F. MacKenzie applied on August 10, 1964, for a $40,000 decreasing-term life policy. His application denied any heart trouble, high blood pressure, or abnormal pulse and listed only three physician visits in the preceding five years. At the time, the answers were true to his knowledge, and Prudential's examining doctor recorded a normal blood-pressure reading of 140/78. The application made coverage conditional on the answers remaining true and complete when the policy was delivered.

Before delivery, MacKenzie suffered a chest bruise and saw another physician on September 16. That physician found his blood pressure to be 170/100, prescribed a diuretic used to reduce blood pressure, and advised a complete checkup. When Prudential delivered the policy the next evening, MacKenzie did not disclose either the visit or the elevated reading. He did reduce the policy amount to $20,000 because he anticipated trouble paying premiums. MacKenzie later died from a pulmonary embolus following injuries from a bicycle fall.

Prudential refused to pay the beneficiary, Marcella MacKenzie, arguing that MacKenzie's nondisclosure materially misrepresented his health. The action was filed in Kentucky state court and removed to federal district court on diversity grounds. The district court granted Prudential summary judgment, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue #1

Whether summary judgment was proper despite a factual dispute over whether Prudential's delivery agent asked MacKenzie about changes in his health.

Holding

Yes. Even construing the disputed facts in Mrs. MacKenzie's favor, the undisputed facts established a material nondisclosure as a matter of law.

Reasoning

The court applied Rule 56 on the premise that all relevant facts were either undisputed or resolved in the plaintiff's favor. Thus, it assumed that Prudential's agent did not ask MacKenzie whether his health had changed when the policy was delivered.

That assumption did not alter the result. The legal significance of MacKenzie's silence depended on his own duty to disclose a material change in the truth of his application while Prudential was deciding whether to insure him, not on whether the delivery agent specifically repeated a health question.

Issue #2

Whether MacKenzie's failure to disclose his intervening high blood-pressure reading and physician visit was a material misrepresentation sufficient to void the policy under Kentucky law.

Holding

Yes. The nondisclosure was material to Prudential's risk and therefore voided the policy without any need to prove fraud.

Reasoning

Kentucky law permits an insurer to avoid a policy for a misrepresentation that is material to the risk or fraudulently made. Materiality turns on what insurers generally would have done, following their usual practices, had they known the truth.

Prudential's uncontradicted evidence showed that it relied on the application's health answers and would not have delivered the policy on the same terms if MacKenzie had revealed the elevated blood-pressure reading. Its underwriter stated that the company would either have declined coverage or charged a higher premium. That evidence made the change material.

The court adopted the rule articulated in Stipcich v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.: an applicant must disclose facts learned after applying that make prior application answers no longer true while the insurer is still considering the risk. Basic fairness requires disclosure because the applicant knows the insurer is relying on the application to decide whether to issue coverage.

Although Kentucky's appellate courts had not addressed this precise between-application-and-delivery situation, the Sixth Circuit concluded that Kentucky would follow the widely accepted Stipcich rule. Because MacKenzie knew of the substantially elevated reading and recent medical visit before delivery but said nothing, his silence amounted to a material misrepresentation.