Scheiderer v. Travelers' Ins. Co.

Decision Date31 May 1883
Citation16 N.W. 47,58 Wis. 13
CourtWisconsin Supreme Court
PartiesSCHEIDERER v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO.

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from county court, Milwaukee county.Charles M. Rice, for appellant, George P. Scheiderer.

Markham & Noyes, for respondent, Travelers' Ins. Co.

ORTON, J.

This action is brought on two policies of accident insurance, for the recovery of indemnity for loss of time on account of disability occasioned by personal injury. The conditions upon which both policies are avoided, necessary to be considered, are bodily infirmities or disease, self-inflicted injuries, intoxication, design of the insured or others, and not accident, and standing or riding on platforms of cars. The condition in the policy first set out in the complaint, additional to these, and material, is voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger.” These conditions relate to the cause of the injury. The conditions which affect the liability of the company after the injury, material to the present inquiry, are, in the first policy, “Immediate notice in writing shall be given, addressed to the secretary of this company, at Hartford, Conn.,” etc., and “affirmative proof, (of the particulars of the accident and injury,) and of the duration of the total disability, shall be furnished to the company within seven months from the happening of such accident;” and in the second policy are, “Immediate notice shall be given in writing to the company, at Hartford, stating full name, occupation, and address of the insured, with full particulars of the accident or injury, of which direct and affirmative proof shall be furnished within seven months from the happening of the accident.”

The complaint charges in respect to the accident substantially that the plaintiff fell asleep from weariness and the motion of the cars, and when it was quite dark, “and while he was in a dazed and unconscious condition of mind, and not knowing or realizing what he was doing, involuntarily arose from his seat and walked unconsciously to the platform of said car, and, without fault on his part, fell therefrom to the ground,” and was thereby injured. In respect to the conditions subsequent to the injury, the complaint alleges in the first count “that the plaintiff has, in every respect and particular, fulfilled his part of said contract of insurance, and promptly, at the expiration of said six months from the date of his said injury, caused to be served due proofs of said accident and disability upon defendant;” and in the second count, “that the plaintiff has in all respects complied with the terms and conditions of said contract or ticket upon his part to be performed, and promptly, at the expiration of said 26 weeks from the date of his said injury, caused to be served upon the defendant's agent, at the city of Milwaukee, due proofs of said accident and disability.” The demurrer to the complaint was sustained, presumably on the ground that it did not state a cause of action.

This is peculiarly a case of construction-- First, of the allegations of the complaint relating to the causes of the injury; second, of the conditions of the policies; and, third, of the statute fixing the rule of pleading performance of conditions. The questions of law relating to these matters of construction, or the liability of the company, are plain and simple, and will admit of no argument, or require the citation of authorities.

It is not necessary to wander away and get lost in “that wilderness more dark than groves of fir on Huron's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
24 cases
  • Landau v. Travelers Insurance Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1924
    ... ... court erred in holding that the deceased could not recover on ... account of voluntary exposure to unnecessary danger ... Travelers Ins. Co. v. Randolph, 78 F. 754; ... Bateman v. Insurance Co., 110 Mo.App. 452; Smith ... v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 56 L. R. A. 273. (2) The ... ...
  • McCullough v. The Phoenix Ins. Company
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • January 31, 1893
    ...proofs to the defendant's agents at Fayette. Moore v. Ins. Co., 56 Mo. 343; 2 Wood on Fire Insurance [2 Ed.] sec. 439, p. 936; Scheiderer v. Ins. Co., 58 Wis. 13; Franklin Ins. Co., 42 Mo. 456. (2) There was evidence to show that Spotts & Elkin to whom plaintiffs' testimony showed that proo......
  • Travelers Insurance Company v. Snowden
    • United States
    • Nebraska Supreme Court
    • May 22, 1895
    ... ... of the law of contracts. (2 Parsons, Contracts, 494*, 500*, ... 505*; Robertson v. French, 4 East [Eng], 135; ... Universal Life Ins. Co. v. Devore, 83 Va. 267; ... Schuylkill Navigation Co. v. Moore, 2 Whart. [Pa.], ... 491; May, Insurance [2d ed.], sec. 172; Shader v. Railway ... 262; Freeman v. Travelers Ins. Co., 144 Mass. 572; ... Tucker v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 50 Hun [N ... Y.], 50; Scheiderer v. Travelers Ins. Co., 58 Wis ... 13; Cotton v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 41 F. 506; ... Tooley v. Railway Passenger Assurance Co., 2 Ins. L. J ... ...
  • Cady v. Fid. & Cas. Co. of N.Y.
    • United States
    • Wisconsin Supreme Court
    • November 26, 1907
    ...in a number of cases. Karow v. Continental Ins. Co. of New York, 57 Wis. 68, 15 N. W. 27, 46 Am. Rep. 17;Scheiderer v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 58 Wis. 13, 16 N. W. 47, 46 Am. Rep. 618;Bachmeyer v. Mutual Reserve Fund Life Ass'n, 87 Wis. 325, 58 N. W. 399;Fey v. I. O. O. F. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 12......
  • 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