Arneberg v. Continental Casualty Co.

There is no evidence to justify a contention that the occupation of the insured was different on the day of the accident than it was at the time of making the application. In fact, we do not understand that the defendant seriously contends that there was any change in the occupation of the insured during the time that the policy was in force. It is rather the contention of the defendant that the occupation was not properly classified; that it should have been *433classified in accordance with its manual, that is, “Superintendent in woods, not foreman, D 4 medium.”' It seems apparent to us that…