Brinson v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co.

• Decision Date: 30 October 1957
• Docket Number: No. 166,166
• Citation: Brinson v. Old Republic Life Ins. Co., 247 N.C. 85, 100 S.E.2d 246 (N.C. 1957)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: Edmond BRINSON v. OLD REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

Page 246

100 S.E.2d 246

247 N.C. 85

Edmond BRINSON v.OLD REPUBLIC LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY.

No. 166

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 30, 1957

Grady Mercer, Kenansville, for plaintiff-appellant.

Vance B. Gavin, Kenansville, for defendant-appellee.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The evidence, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, permits the inference (1) that his left eye was injured in a fall from a truckload of stumps; (2) because of the injury he is blind in the injured eye to the extent he cannot distinguish objects or colors, or tell the difference between day and night, though he can perceive some movement to the side and discover there is a little light when the sun is shining; (3) that the condition is permanent.

The foregoing seems to be a fair summary of the plaintiff's evidence, both on direct and cross-examination.His statement that he is totally blind in his left eye is explained by his details as to his ability to distinguish a little light when the sun is shining.Does the evidence make out a case for the jury?

'The general rule is that the insured need not be totally blind but that if the insured has lost all practical use of his eyes, he is entitled to recover, although he may still have slight vision such as ability to distinguish between daylight and darkness. 'Vance on Insurance, 3rd ed., Sec. 193, p. 992.'Provisions in accident policies for the payment of a specified indemnity for loss of sight are liberally construed in favor of the insured, and within such provisions there is an entire loss of sight, although sight is not completely destroyed, if what sight is left is of no practical use or benefit.'45 C.J.S.Insurance§ 900, p. 988.

In the case of Tracey v. Standard Acc. Ins. Co., 119 Me. 131, 109 A. 490, 494, 9 A.L.R. 521, the Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, in a well-considered opinion construing a policy similar to the one involved here, announced the following rule:

'The intent and purpose of the policy as a business proposition was to indemnify the plaintiff for the loss of the complete or 'entire' use of his eye.The 'loss of the entire sight' of an eye, and the loss of the entire use of an eye, by blindness, in practical effect, are precisely the same.Being a business contract, this policy should be construed, like any other contract, with reference to the object, purpose, conditions, and circumstances.

'The eye has earning capacity as well as the hand.To indemnify the complete loss of the sight of an eye as an earning factor was undoubtedly one of the controlling reasons for taking the policy.

'We feel it would be unfair to the company, as well as the plaintiff, to impute to it the intention, by the artful employment of a word, to base its liability upon the frail and frivolous distinction between ocular ability to discriminate a flood of light from total darkness, and without the power to distinguish one object from another in the strongest light.'

In the case of Continental Casualty Co. v. Linn, 226 Ky. 328, 10 S.W.2d 1079, 1082, the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in construing a policy similar to the one involved here, said:

'The term used must be construed in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense (1 C.J. 417), and the loss of the use of the member of the body is equivalent to the loss of that member.Can anyone doubt that one who can barely distinguish daylight from darkness has lost his entire sight?* * * In Murray v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., (D.C.)243 F. 285, where the policy provided for the payment of indemnity for the 'loss of the entire sight of one eye, * *' * * * it was held that, if by an accident the insured had irrevocably lost the useful and practical sight of the eye, although he could distinguish light from darkness * * * he was entitled to recover under the policy.Other cases to the same effect are Tracey v....