Brooks v. Wash. Nat. Ins. Co, 90.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 90.,90. |
| Citation | 189 S.E. 787,211 N.C. 274 |
| Parties | BROOKS. v. WASHINGTON NAT. INS. CO. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; F. D. Phillips, Judge.
Action by Ruth Brooks against the Washington National Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, on plaintiff's appeal from an adverse judgment of a justice of the peace, defendant appeals.
New trial ordered.
This is an action to recover on a policy of insurance. The action was begun in a court of a justice of the peace of Buncombe county. From an adverse judgment of said court, the plaintiff appealed to the superior court of said county.
At the trial in the superior court, the defendant admitted the issuance of the policy sued on to the plaintiff, and its liability to her under its provisions. The controversy between the parties involved only the amount which the plaintiff is entitled to recover of the defendant in this action.
The policy provides that subject to its provisions the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff a monthly indemnity of $30, for such time as the plaintiff shall be totally and continuously disabled because of disease from performing duties pertaining to her occupation. It further provides that "if such disability or other loss is due directly or indirectly, wholly or in part, to hernia or such disease or illness which has become chronic, the company's liability in any one policy year shall be limited to two months indemnity at the rate of monthly indemnity hereinbefore specified."
There was evidence tending to show that plaintiff became ill on July 28, 1935, and that she has been ill continuously since that date; that her illness was pulmonary tuberculosis; and that by reason of said disease she was totally disabled to perform the duties pertaining to her occupation from July 28, 1935, to December 28, 1935, a period of five months.
The plaintiff contended that under the provisions of the policy she is entitled to recover of the defendant a monthly indemnity of $30, from July 28, 1935, to December 28, 1935, to wit, $150, less the premiums due on said policy for five months, to wit, $9.50.
There was evidence offered by the defendant tending to show the disease from which plaintiff suffered, and which resulted in her disability, was and is chronic.
The defendant contended that under the provisions of the policy, the plaintiff is entitled to recover of the defendant a monthly indemnity for only two months, to wit, $60, less the premiums due for said two months, to wit, $3.80.
The issues submitted to the jury were answered as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gorham v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... S.E. 261. This makes it a case for the jury under the theory ... of the trial. Brooks v. Ins. Co., 211 N.C. 274, 189 ... S.E. 787; Diamond v. Service Stores, 211 N.C. 632, ... 191 ... ...
-
Oberly & Newell Lithograph Corp. v. Clark
...liability. It was error, therefore, for the court to instruct the jury peremptorily in favor of the plaintiff. Brooks v. Washington Nat. Ins. Co., 211 N.C. 274, 189 S.E. 787. The rule is, that where the evidence is conflicting, or if diverse inferences may reasonably be drawn therefrom, som......