New York Life Insurance Company, Case Study Example

Case # 238 (Julius Steinberg, Respondent, v. New York Life Insurance Company, Appellant Court of Appeals of New York. October 25, 1933, Argued November 21, 1933, Decided)

Facts

The insurance provider would not provide disability benefits to the individual due to the fact that the the individual was not truthful when applying for their insurance. During the case, the individual attempted to call a physician as a witness.  This physician had given an examination to the individual that very day.  The testimony of the physician was that the individual had pulmonary tuberculosis.  The physician explained that the individual had been dealing with this for months.

Upon this testimony, the insurance company then had their own witnesses, both physicians, give their own testimony.  These two explained that the individual failed to contact them concerning the matter during all of this.  During the original case, however, the individual was not able to have the physicians testify.  This was due to a technicality concerning consultations such as doctor-patient privileges and confidentiality.

The ruling of the court was that the individual’s attempt to call his physician as a witness and release this information to the court served as his relinquishing of the right.  Due to this, the insurance agency was supposed to have allowed the individual to have his own witnesses on the matter. This would have been grounds for establishing the individual’s argument that they had been dealing with the symptoms of these problems for a matter of years and had been to visit various clinical experts over that span of time in order to seek aid.

Issue

The case is centered around the issue of whether the individual, in calling a physician as a witness, had already disclosed the personal information to the court concerning the matter of his illness.  On January 1, 1932, he essentially gave up the right to have this information considered private.  For this reason, he should have been given the privilege of calling on other physicians as witnesses in order to support his case.  This would have helped him to establish the length of time that he had been dealing with this illness and that he had, in fact, sought aid in treating it.

Decision

The court reversed the judgments of the lower court and the trial court and granted a new trial.

Reasoning

During the trial, the individual had his physician called for a testimony.  This determined that the person had been actively seeking treatment for over half a year for the disease that he was suffering from.  The active pulmonary tuberculosis that he had been diagnosed with was released publicly by this testimony.  By disclosing this information, he essentially released himself from the protection afforded to him by the law on this matter.

By arguing that the patient could give away his right to secrecy as guaranteed by the law by the fact that he himself called the physician as a witness and released the information concerning his ailment, while also arguing that this act prevents him from relying further on his physicians to give testimony regarding these ailments the insurance company called the court to question.   The court argued that if this ruling were not overturned, then it would be inherently immoral.  They argued that the law never originally focused on being used for this purpose by those who framed it.  The court contended the importance having the witness able to provide these testimonies.

Observations

The objective of the ruling that the court relied on was in setting out the purposes of section 352 of the Civil Practice Act.  By doing so, they attempted to determine how this act was originally intended to help the individuals it applied to.  By determining that the individual had himself waived his right to protections under this act, the court was able to protect the right of the individual to have a fair and balanced trial.

I agree with this decision.  It seems that the insurer was attempting to manipulate the laws for their own intentions.  By overturning the decision, the court was able to maintain the rights that the act was originally intended to protect.  By doing so, they are able to set a further precedence that will serve to protect those who are confronted with this situation in the future.

Works Cited

Case # 238 (Julius Steinberg, Respondent, v. New York Life Insurance Company, Appellant Court of Appeals of New York. October 25, 1933, Argued November 21, 1933, Decided)