Young

This is the second time this cause has been before this court. On both occasions the plaintiff-beneficiary under an application for a life insurance policy has been the appealing party. On the former occasion the judgment of the trial court was by the court, sitting without a jury, in favor of the respondent insurance company and its agent. On this occasion the judgment was again for the respondent insurance company and its agent upon a jury verdict.

The former opinion (Young v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (1969) 272 Cal.App.2d 453 [ 77 Cal.Rptr. 382 , 78 Cal.Rptr. 568 ]) is the law of the case (Benson v. Andrews (1958) 166 Cal.App.2d 44 at p. 51 [ 332 P.2d 698 ]). Essential to the disposition of the questions which we must now decide is the proper interpretation of the former opinion.

The parties are in agreement on the facts summarized in the former opinion, from which we quote:

In reversing the judgment this court held that though Part A of the application and the conditional receipt were not ambiguous, insurance contracts are contracts of adhesion and it was the obligation of the respondent insurance company to bring to the attention of the deceased applicant all…