Gilcreast v. Providential Life Insurance

I concur in the reversal and remand of this case but want to make my position clear on a couple of points.

The trial court’s instruction No. 10 told the jury that knowledge obtained by appellee’s soliciting agent could not be imputed to the appellee. This was objected to on the basis that it was an incorrect statement of the law. In addition, the court refused to give appellant’s requested instruction “E” which would have told the jury that the agent’s knowledge of appellant’s preexisting medical condition was imputed to the appellee. I think it may be important to know why it was error to…