The Court of Appeal has allowed Irish Life Assurance plc’s appeal against a High Court refusal to let it put written questions to two plaintiffs about the medical history of Marie McCabe, the deceased insured person in a €250,000 life assurance claim.
In a judgment delivered on 9 November 2015, Kelly J. said the proposed interrogatories served a clear purpose and were likely to save costs and shorten the trial. The court set aside the High Court order and approved 13 amended questions for the plaintiffs to answer under oath.
Joseph McCabe and Clara McCabe, identified in the judgment as the deceased’s widower and daughter, seek payment under a policy entered into in or about November 2005. Irish Life disputes the claim, pleading that Marie McCabe failed to disclose material facts when the policy was arranged. Its defence lists alleged medical treatment and care from 1984 to 2005, including hospital admissions, treatment for possible anorexia nervosa, alcohol-related treatment, psychiatric care and prescribed medication. Those are allegations in the defence, not findings in this appeal.
The plaintiffs deny that the deceased breached a duty to disclose material facts. They also dispute that any alleged omission amounted to material non-disclosure and say they await strict proof that the deceased completed the proposal form. They contend that Danske Bank, which was joined as a third party, completed it as broker and agent for Irish Life.
Before seeking leave, Irish Life served a notice asking the plaintiffs to admit the alleged medical-history facts. The judgment says the plaintiffs refused to admit them and did not explain their position; later correspondence about draft interrogatories drew only an acknowledgment. The High Court refused leave, reasoning that the medical questions did not lend themselves to simple yes-or-no answers and that the plaintiffs should be able to test doctors’ evidence at trial.
The Court of Appeal disagreed. Kelly J. said the questions could be answered yes or no, or the plaintiffs could explain if they could not answer. If they admitted the facts, whether those facts justified avoiding the policy would be a question of law; if they did not give the anticipated answers, Irish Life would have to call witnesses, whom the plaintiffs could cross-examine.
The appeal concerned permission to deliver interrogatories, not the insurance claim’s ultimate merits. The court did not decide whether there had been non-disclosure or whether the policy could be avoided. The approved questions cover alleged hospital treatment, alcohol dependency and treatment, psychiatric care and medication. The judgment’s schedule contains date and name variations from the earlier pleadings, including “19th May, 1984” where the defence and proposed questions refer to 10 May 1984; it also spells the GP’s surname “Hanley” in the schedule and “Hanly” earlier.