Justice v. Prudential Insurance Company of America
| Citation | 351 F.2d 462 |
| Decision Date | 22 September 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 9885.,9885. |
| Parties | Jacqueline JUSTICE, Appellant, v. The PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit) |
Leonard B. Sachs, Norfolk, Va. (Jesse L. Stern and Lee Kelberg, Norfolk, Va., on brief), for appellant.
Harry Frazier, III, Richmond, Va. (Eppa Hunton, IV, and Hunton, Williams, Gay, Powell & Gibson, Richmond, Va., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF and J. SPENCER BELL, Circuit Judges, and WINTER, District Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court sitting without a jury. The plaintiff's husband was one of four employees who were to participate in an "employees' security plan" of insurance sold by the defendant. Unfortunately, the husband was killed in an accident after he had signed the application for the insurance and the premium had been paid, but before he received notice that he had been rejected by the company for lack of certain medical information.
The district court has set forth in detail its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and nothing would be gained by a repetition thereof. The appellant contends that the court erred in holding the case of Hayes v. Durham Life Insurance Company, 198 Va. 670, 96 S.E.2d 109 (1957), to be controlling. She contends that Hayes can be factually distinguished. It is true that there are differences. Hayes involved an application by one individual for a policy of life insurance, while here we deal with so-called wholesale insurance covering four employees and involving several kinds of risk. In Hayes the application specified that the policy must be delivered while the insured was alive and in good health; here the application merely required approval by the company. In Hayes the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia rejected the contention that the plaintiff could recover in tort, pointing out that the action sounded in contract,1 while here there is no question but that under federal procedure the plaintiff may recover in either tort or contract if she can make out a case under Virginia law. The district court considered and rejected the plaintiff's attempt to distinguish the cases based on these factual differences, and we are forced to the conclusion that it was correct in doing so. The type of contract involved here permitted the company to choose its risks among the several employees and thus in principle is nearer to the individual policy sale than it is to group insurance. Nor do we think that the difference between a requirement of delivery of the policy while the insured is in good health...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burgess v. Charlottesville Savings and Loan Ass'n
...a right of action, citing Hayes v. Durham Life Insurance Company (1957) 198 Va. 670, 96 S.E.2d 109 and Justice v. Prudential Insurance Company of America (4th Cir. 1965) 351 F.2d 462, decided by this Court on the basis of Virginia law.5 The Court, after finding federal jurisdiction on the g......
-
Berry v. Druid City Hospital Bd.
...cases on this point, we find no election necessary at the pleading stage in this situation. See, e.g., Justice v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 351 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1965); Israel v. Alexander, 50 F.Supp. 1007 Of course, in the instant case, this problem is not before us since t......
-
Progressive Enterprises, Inc. v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co.
...we have recognized that it is binding upon us in a diversity case arising in Virginia such as here. Justice v. Prudential Insurance Company of America (4th Cir. 1965) 351 F.2d 462, 463. In that case, we * * * Subsequent cases may afford Virginia the opportunity to limit Hayes to its facts i......
-
FDIC v. Heidrick, Civ. No. HM-86-77.
...been decided by the highest court in the state, federal courts must apply those pronouncements without review. Justice v. Prudential Ins. Co., 351 F.2d 462, 463 (4th Cir.1965). In light of the holding of the Court in Finci, this Court will grant the defendant's motion for reconsideration of......