Travellers Ins Co v. McConkey

Decision Date14 May 1888
Citation32 L.Ed. 308,127 U.S. 661,8 S.Ct. 1360
PartiesTRAVELLERS' INS. CO. v. MCCONKEY
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

[Statement of Case from pages 661-665 intentionally omitted] B. D. Lee and J. F. Ellis, for plaintiff in error.

W. G. Thompson and H. B. Fouke, for defendant in error.

Mr. Justice HARLAN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

There is no escape from the conclusion that, under the issue presented by the general denial in the answer, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to show, from all the evidence, that the death of the insured was the result, nor only of external and violent, but of accidental, means. The policy provides that the insurance shall not extend to any case of death or personal injury, unless the claimant under the policy establishes, by direct and positive proof, that such death or personal injury was caused by external violence and accidental means. Such being the contract, the court must give effect to its provisions according to the fair meaning of the words used; leaning, however, where the words do not clearly indicate the intention of the parties, to that interpretation which is must favorabel to the insured. Bank v. Insurance Co., 95 U. S. 678; Insurance Co. v. Cropper, 32 Pa. St. 355; Reynolds v. InsuranceCo., 47 N. Y. 604; Anderson v. Fitzgerald, 4 H. L. Cas. 484, 498, 507; Fowkes v. Association, 3 Best & S. 925. The requirement, however, of direct and positive proof, as to certain matters, did not make it necessary to establish the fact and attendant circumstances of death by persons who were actually present when the insured received the injuries which caused his death. The two principal facts to be established, were external violence and accidental means, producing death. The first was established when it appeared that death ensued from a pistol shot through the heart of the insured. The evidence on that point was direct and positive; as much so, within the meaning of the policy, as if it had come from one who saw the pistol fired; and the proof, on this point, is none the less direct and positive because supplemented or strengthened by evidence of a circumstantial character. Were the means by which the insured came to his death also accidental? If he committed suicide, then the law was for the company, because the policy, by its terms, did not extend to or cover self-destruction, whethe the insured was at the time sane or insane. In respect to the issue as to suicide, the court instructed the jury that self-destruction was not to be presumed. In Mallory v. Insurance Co., 47 N. Y. 54, which was a suit upon an accident policy, it...

To continue reading

Request your trial
350 cases
  • Lavender v. Volunteer State Life, Ins. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
    • 22 Octubre 1934
    ......Protective. Assn. v. Cranford, 137 Miss. 901; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown, 39 F.2d 376; Travelers Ins. Co. of. Hartford v. McConkey, 127 U.S. 661, 666, 8 S.Ct. 1360, 32. L.Ed. 308. . . The. death of Lavender resulted from a violation of the law. . . The. ......
  • Browning v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of United States
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Utah
    • 13 Junio 1938
    ...... Travelers'. Ins. Co. , 18 Tenn.App. 552, 557, 79 S.W.2d 824;. Lincoln National Life Ins. Co. v. Erickson ,. 8 Cir., 42 F.2d 997; Travellers' Ins. Co. v. McConkey , 127 U.S. 661, 8 S.Ct. 1360, 32 L.Ed. 308;. Abbott v. Prudential Ins. Co. , N. H., 195. A. 413; Worley v. ......
  • Green v. Atlanta &. C. A. L. Ry. Co
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • 7 Julio 1928
    ...113, 63 L. R. A. 416; Jarnagin v. Travelers' Protective Ass'n (C. C. A.) 133 F. 892, 6S L. R. A". 499; Travelers' Ins. Co. v. McConkey, 127 U. S. 661, 8 S. Ct. 1360, 32 L. Ed. 308. Much confusion, as pointed out by Prof. Green, has been caused by assuming that the prime cause was an act of ......
  • Evans v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Kansas
    • 16 Julio 1991
    ...death is against murder. (Warner v. U.S. Mutual Acc. Assoc., 8 Utah 431, 32 Pac. 696 [ (1893) ]; Travellers' Insurance Co. v. McConkey, 127 U.S. 661, 32 L.Ed. 308, 8 S.Ct. 1360 [ (1888) ]; Lampkin v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 11 Colo.App. 249, 52 Pac. 1040 [ (1898) "Passing for the moment the qu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT