# Republic National Life Insurance Co. v. Chilcoat

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · October 24, 1961 · 368 P.2d 821

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620613

## Case

- **Full name:** REPUBLIC NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation of Dallas, Texas, Plaintiff in Error, v. Wana CHILCOAT, Individually, and as Executrix of the Estate of Fred C. Chilcoat, Deceased, Defendant in Error
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** October 24, 1961
- **Citations:** 368 P.2d 821; 1961 OK 254; 1961 Okla. LEXIS 504
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Jackson
- **Judges:** Berry, Blackbird, Davison, Halley, Irwin, Jackson, Johnson, Welch, Williams
- **Cited by:** 13 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620613

## Opinion text

JACKSON, Justice
(concurring specially).
I am able to concur in this case because of the testimony of Mr. Colen E. McRae, Jr., who identified himself as Assistant Vice President of defendant company, in charge of Agency Underwriting.
This witness testified with commendable candor that the Chilcoat file was delivered to him on May 30, 1956. That he reviewed the entire file, including Dr. Moore’s examination, the urinalysis report and inspection report, and further testified as follows :
“Q. What were your conclusions from an underwriting standpoint. A. In reviewing Dr. Moore’s examination, I found that the pulse rate was rather high, and I found that the blood pressure was high. I found that Dr. Moore, in making his examination of the urine, found a large amount of sugar. I also found that the applicant was crippled *828 to some extent and I believe Dr. Moore expresses here that he used crutches, I believe, or cane- — crutches, he said, in walking, two crutches. Of course the sugar finding here — now, our laboratory — the doctor examines the specimen and so does our laboratory. We have two checks on that. The laboratory did not find the sugar, and so the question in my mind was whether this man was a diabetic. If he was, he would not qualify for life insurance at all. But his blood pressure and his pulse and the fact that he used crutches, made him rather highly substandard. * *
“Q. Now, what do you mean by the fact that you found him to be highly substandard ? A. It means that he could not qualify for a standard life insurance policy. In other words, at the regular published rates in the rate book carried by our salesmen. * * *
“Q. What else did you do with this file? A. Well, we try to give insurance to everbody we can on some basis, even substandard, if we can, and so I passed the case to our medical director, who is a doctor. * * *
“Q. And what was your purpose in referring this case to the medical director. * * * A. I wanted the
doctor’s opinion as to whether — as to how much importance he attached to the sugar finding, because if he felt the man was not a diabetic we could offer him a substandard rate; * *
It is apparent from the foregoing that the Chilcoat application for insurance was rejected on May 30, 1956. Any further investigations made or attempted after that date were not for the purpose of determining whether the application for insurance would be accepted or rejected, but for the purpose of determining whether the company would offer Chilcoat a “substandard rate” or a less favorable insurance contract.
In view of the fact that the application was rejected on May 30, 1956, it seems to me that this supports the view that the company was negligent in failing to notify Chil-coat of that fact within a reasonable time after intelligently and advisedly rejecting the application. These facts tend to minimize the prejudicial effect of the alleged errors set forth and discussed in the majority opinion.
I am authorized to state that DAVISON, J., concurs in the views expressed herein.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620613. Public record. Not legal advice.