Booth v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co.

• Decision Date: 11 July 1925
• Citation: 130 A. 131
• Parties: BOOTH v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

130 A. 131

BOOTH

v. UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY CO.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

July 11, 1925.

Suit by William Booth against the United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company. Judgment for plaintiff.

Bleakly, Stockwell & Burling, of Camden, for plaintiff.

Carr & Carroll, of Camden, for defendant.

DONGES, J. Suit is brought to recover on a contract of insurance issued by defendant to plaintiff, assuring him certain payments in event of accidental bodily injuries, whether fatal or nonfatal. The facts are stipulated and are submitted for determination without a jury.

The question presented is whether, under the agreed facts, plaintiff is entitled to recover under the clause in the policy providing for full indemnity if the assured meet accidental injury, which "shall, independently and exclusively of all other causes, continuously and wholly disable and prevent the insured from the date of accident from performing any and every kind of duty pertaining to his occupation," or, under another provision for partial indemnity, if, "such injury shall not wholly disable the insured, but, independently and exclusively of all other causes, shall from the date of the accident [or immediately following total disability] continuously disable and prevent him from performing one or more material daily duties pertaining to his occupation."

From the agreed facts it appears that on May 19, 1924, during the term of the policy, at Newport News Shipbuilding Company, at Newport News, Va., while in his employment as a ship surveyor and inspector, plaintiff accidentally fell, and was struck upon the head and chin, and was rendered insensible. Upon recovering his senses he had the apparent and superficial wounds and injuries dressed and went to his temporary residence in Newport News. He immediately complained of dizziness, headache, blurred vision, and that his eyes "had gone had on him." He "could not see well enough nor carry an association of ideas long enough to read a telegram from his employer," was obliged to have it read to him, and could not recall the answer made thereto. From the time of the accident his vision was impaired, he could read only one letter of a word at a time, and seemed unable to comprehend the whole word at once. He could not write with his usual facility. He suffered pains in the head.

From. May 19 to June 20, 1924, plaintiff went to his place of employment and endeavored to perform his duties for a part of each day. He was unable to remain for the usual period of time, and was obliged to remain away entirely for one day in each week. The quality of his work fell off from the date of the injury and grew progressively worse. He failed to note defects in the work under his supervision, and others made reports thereon.

On June 20, 1924, plaintiff became very ill. He was only semiconscious. He lost the use of his voice and of his right arm and right leg, and on June 23d he suffered a complete paralysis of the right side, and on June 30th was operated on for decompression of the brain.

It is agreed that plaintiff had a typical right hemiplegia, accompanied by aphasia, caused by a lesion in the left internal capsule of the brain; that the affected vision, loss of memory, and lack of co-ordination, as evidenced in plaintiff's handwriting, are symptoms of brain disorder; that his condition was due to hemorrhage or thrombosis; that plaintiff's condition is known as "spate" or late apoplexy, and is caused by a concussion of the brain, the result of a fall or a blow; and that his total breakdown and total incapacity are a direct result of the accident, and prevent him from performing any and every kind of duty pertaining to his occupation.

Defendant insists plaintiff...