dissenting.
The direction of a verdict is only appropriate where there is no conflict in the evidence as to any material issue and the evidence introduced demands a particular verdict. While there was evidence, as found by the trial judge, that the appellant testified that he knew of some of the hospitalizations that were not disclosed, there is also further testimony by the appellee that he disclosed everything to the insurance agent and that it was given to the best of his knowledge and belief. On a motion for directed verdict taking plaintiff's statements, “I told him everything that I . . . answered all the questions that he asked me . . .” in the light most favorable to him as must be done on a motion for directed verdict, a jury could accept the latter favorable testimony and reject the former equivocal harmful testimony. A jury question seems to obtain as to this issue.
Further, the two copies of defendant’s Exhibit 1 for insurance are illegible. There is no way for this court to consider the alleged limitation of the authority of the agent in the application since the type is so small and blurred that we cannot read it. Unless an appropriate limitation in the application does exist, the following three whole court cases would seem to control: Allstate Ins. Co. v. Anderson, 121 Ga. App. 582 (174 SE2d 591) (1970); Reserve Life Ins. Co. v. Meeks, 121 Ga. App. 592 (174 SE2d 585) (1970); Chester v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 121 Ga. App. 599 (174 SE2d 582) (1970). With the inability of this court to consider this question because of the blurred application, we should reverse the grant of the motion for directed verdict and remand the case for trial. I, therefore, respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Chief Judge McMurray and Judge Banke join in this dissent.