« PreviousContinue »
THE DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME AND CIRCUIT COURTS OF THE UNITED
\TES, OF THE SUPREME AND APPELLATE COURTS OF THE VA-
ING FRATERNAL BENEFIT ORDERS.
REFERENCE TO ANNOTATED INSURANCE CASES
IN EDITORIALS IN LAW JOURNALS ON INSURANCE CASES.
BY JOHN A. FINCH,
OF THE INDIANAPOLIS BAR.
DIGEST OF INSURANCE CASES
TABLE OF CASES.
ACCIDENT INSURANCE. Policy_“External and Visible Sign"__" External, Violent and Accidental Means”-Suffocation by Gas.--The action was brought on a policy which covered injury and death, "through external, violent and accidental means," and excepted bodily injuries, "of which there shall be no external and visible sign upon the body," and "death by the taking of poison, contact with poisonous substances, or inhaling of gas, or by any surgical operation or medical treatment.” Held, to cover a death by the accidental inhaling of escaping illuminating gas in sleep.
Paul v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (N. Y. S. C.), 36 Albany Law Journal (Oct. 1, 1887), p. 262.
Defense- Pleading-Proof. – An accident policy provided that death from “intentional injuries inflicted by the insured or any other person" was not covered by it. In a suit on the policy the answer denied that the death of the insured was occasioned by external, violent or accidental means, but made no averment that he died from intentional injuries. Held, the defense of intentional injury was not open to the company under its answer, and it was erroneous to place the burden of negativing this as a cause of death upon the plaintiff.
Same-Lack of Notice-Pleading.–The defense of lack of due notice in a suit upon an insurance policy must be expressly averred in the answer if the fact of due notice is not alleged in the petition.
Coburn v. Travelers' Ins. Co. (Mass. S. J. C.), 13 Northeastern Reporter (Nov. 18, 1887), p. 604.