A quarterly summary and brief analysis of significant decisions issued by the Massachusetts Superior Court Business Litigation Session. A service of O’Connor, Carnathan and Mack LLC.
 

March
2008

Volume 4
Number 3
Page 1

 

Summarizing opinions from July 1, 2007 through
Sept. 30, 2007


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 



 

 

     

F  E  A  T  U  R  E  D     D  E  C  I  S  I  O  N  :

Hejinian v. General American Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 2076489 (Mass. Super.)
(July 16, 2007) (Gants, J.).

     

The Court correctly granted summary judgment to OCM’s client in this case, which involves the interpretation and application of M.G.L. ch. 175, § 124 (“Section 124”). Section 124 governs life insurance policies issued without a full medical examination. The statute provides that an insurance company may deny a claim under a policy issued without a prior medical examination only if there was a willfully false, fraudulent or misleading statement in the application.

In February of 2003, plaintiff’s wife, then thirty six years old, completed an application for life insurance with the defendant, naming the plaintiff as her beneficiary. Plaintiff’s wife had not been treated for nor diagnosed with any significant medical condition at the time of her application and therefore she listed no major diseases on her application form. The company elected not to conduct a medical examination, but chose instead to conduct a more cursory paramedical examination. Her application was approved, and the policy was delivered on June 23, 2003. After the application was submitted but before the policy was received, plaintiff’s wife was diagnosed with cancer. Nevertheless, when she received her policy, she signed and returned a delivery receipt which contained a certification that her previous answers regarding her health were still accurate. Plaintiff’s wife died from cancer in March 2004.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

When plaintiff filed a claim for payment with defendant several months later, defendant denied plaintiff’s claim based on his late wife’s failure to disclose her cancer diagnosis when she signed her delivery receipt.

The court commenced its analysis by noting that under G.L. c. 175, § 124, “an insurer may avoid payment on a life insurance policy in which the insurer did not obtain a prior medical examination of the insured only if the insured made a willfully false, fraudulent, or misleading statement in her application regarding her physical condition.” Id. at *5. “Refusing to pay death benefits based on the contention that the decedent’s signature on a document characterized as a Receipt adopted nine assertions, including assertions as simple as acknowledging receipt and complex as declaring no change in the condition or health, is precisely the type of ‘gotcha’ tactics that the Commissioner of Insurance railed against in 1888 and ultimately prevailed upon the Legislature to change in 1892 by enacting § 124.” Id. at *10.

Because OCM believes the application of the statute to this situation was obvious and the insurer knew or should have known it was liable to pay benefits under the Policy, OCM is currently prosecuting a claim for unfair and deceptive claims settlement practices under G.L. c. 176D.


 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 
PAGE  1  2  3  4  5  6  7 8