## Facts

- Jerome F. MacKenzie applied on August 10, 1964, for a $40,000 decreasing term life insurance policy issued by The Prudential Insurance Company of America.
- The application, completed with a physician examiner, asked whether he had ever had heart trouble, high blood pressure, or abnormal pulse; he answered “No.”
- The application required that all answers “continue to be true and complete” as of the date the policy was delivered.
- At the application examination, MacKenzie’s blood pressure was recorded as 140/78.
- On September 16, 1964, one day before delivery, MacKenzie consulted a physician for a chest bruise; his blood pressure was found to be 170/100.
- The physician prescribed Naturetin (to reduce blood pressure) and advised a complete checkup.
- The policy was delivered on September 17, 1964, and MacKenzie did not disclose the elevated blood pressure, treatment, or medical advice to the insurer.
- MacKenzie died in August 1966; the beneficiary, Marcella A. MacKenzie, claimed the policy proceeds.
- Prudential denied the claim, asserting a material misrepresentation/omission at delivery.
- The district court entered summary judgment for Prudential; the beneficiary appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether, under an application clause requiring answers to remain true at delivery, the insured had a duty to disclose a material change in health occurring between application and delivery.
2. Whether nondisclosure of newly discovered high blood pressure and related treatment/advice was a material misrepresentation permitting the insurer to treat the policy as void.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper where the relevant facts concerning the change in health and nondisclosure were undisputed.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Prudential.
- The court held that, even if the application answers were true when made, the insured’s failure to disclose the intervening development of high blood pressure and treatment rendered the continuing-truth condition unmet at delivery.
- The nondisclosure was material because it related to the risk and would have affected the insurer’s decision to issue the policy or the terms of issuance.
- Prudential was entitled to avoid the policy and deny payment of benefits.

## Legal Principles

- When coverage is conditioned on the continued truth and completeness of application answers as of policy delivery, the applicant must disclose material health changes arising after application but before delivery.
- A misrepresentation or omission is material if disclosure would have led the insurer to decline the risk or issue coverage only on different terms.
- Under a continuing-truth delivery condition, failure to update the insurer about a material deterioration in health may be treated as a misrepresentation at delivery, allowing rescission or denial of benefits.
- Summary judgment is appropriate where the operative facts are undisputed and only the legal effect of those facts remains.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the application’s continuing-truth clause and held that the insured’s nondisclosure of a significant, medically treated increase in blood pressure before delivery constituted a material misrepresentation at delivery, permitting the insurer to treat the policy as void and prevail on summary judgment.


MacKenzie v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 411 F.2d 781 (6th Cir. 1969)