Davis v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc. of U.S.

Decision Date25 February 1966
Citation90 N.J.Super. 328,217 A.2d 459
PartiesGordon DAVIS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. The EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF the UNITED STATES, a corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtNew Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division

Paul B. Thompson Jersey City, for appellant (Lamb, Blake, Hutchinson & Dunne, Jersey City, attorneys).

Janet W. Freeman, Newark, for respondent (Fred Freeman, Newark, attorney).

Before Judges GAULKIN, LABRECQUE and BROWN.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff sued upon a group accident policy. He claimed a fall caused injuries which necessitated the amputation of his leg. Defendant denied this and said the amputation was compelled solely by plaintiff's diabetes or, at least, by the combined action of both, in either of which cases the policy did not cover. There was a verdict for plaintiff and defendant appeals.

The policy provided:

'Upon receipt of due proof that any employee, while insured under this policy, shall have sustained bodily injuries caused directly and exclusively by external, violent and purely accidental means, and within ninety days after such injuries, and as a result, directly and independently of all other causes, of such injuries shall have sustained any of the losses enumerated in the Schedule of Losses set forth below, the Society will, subject to the limitations and provision of this policy, pay to such employee * * *.

No payment shall be made under this policy for any loss resulting from or caused directly or indirectly, wholly or partly, by (a) bodily or mental infirmity, hernia, ptomainers, bacterial infections (except infections caused by pyogenic organisms which shall occur with and through an accidental cut or wound) or disease or illness of any kind * * *.'

Defendant contends it was entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence was incontrovertible that, at the very least, the diabetes was a substantial factor in making the amputation necessary. However, plaintiff had offered proof that his diabetes was inactive and under control before the amputation and had nothing to do with the amputation, or, if it did, that the diabetes was inactive at the time of the accident and the accident activated it. We think the evidence in the record before us made the opposing contentions of the parties questions for the jury and therefore the denial of a directed verdict was proper.

However, we think the charge to the jury was prejudicially improper and inadequate.

To begin with, the judge should not have charged the jury as follows:

'As to the construction of such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • ORITANI SAV. AND LOAN v. Fidelity and Deposit Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • July 6, 1990
    ...it would be necessary for this Court to instruct the jury as to what coverage the policy provides. Davis v. The Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 90 N.J.Super. 328, 331, 217 A.2d 459 (App.Div.1966). As the parties concede, the issue presented to this Court for decision involves only a question of......
  • ORITANI SAV. & LOAN v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., Civ. A. No. 89-5355(HAA).
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • October 3, 1991
    ...Ultimately, at trial, the Court must instruct the jury as to what coverage the policy provides. Davis v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 90 N.J.Super. 328, 331, 217 A.2d 459 (App.Div.1966). However, ordinarily the issue of whether the employee's act was dishonest within the bond coverage is for......
  • Feldman v. Lederle Laboratories, a Div. of American Cyanamid Co.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • June 15, 1992
    ...opinions are intended for the guidance of the bench and bar and are not to be read to the jury." Davis v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc'y, 90 N.J.Super. 328, 331, 217 A.2d 459 (App.Div.1966). This is especially so where the principles are not relevant to the jury's function and/or contain st......
  • Horn v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • May 28, 1993
    ...of contract which does not depend on extrinsic evidence is matter of law for the court); Davis v. The Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 90 N.J.Super. 328, 331, 217 A.2d 459 (App.Div.1966) (court, not jury, should have construed insurance policy); Andreaggi v. Relis, 171 N.J.Super. 203, 212, 408 A......

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