Elliott v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
Decision Date | 10 January 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 24658.,24658. |
Citation | 388 F.2d 362 |
Parties | John S. ELLIOTT and Fredda Caldwell Elliott, Appellants, v. MASSACHUSETTS MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William G. West, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.
Ralph B. Tate, Birmingham, Ala., for appellee.
Before RIVES and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges, and HUGHES, District Judge.
Decision of this appeal turns on the application to stipulated facts of an "Aeronautical Risk Exclusion" in a policy of life insurance and a similar "Exception" in the policy's provision for indemnity benefit for death by accidental means. The insurance company denies liability for the face amount of the policy because of a provision which reads in pertinent part as follows:
As to the provision for death by accidental means, there are nine numbered "Exceptions," each of which may have some relevance, but the most pertinent part of which reads as follows:
"The benefits under this provision shall not be payable if the death of the insured shall have resulted directly or indirectly from: * * * (4) travel or flight in, or descent from or with, any kind of aircraft aboard which the insured is a pilot or member of the crew or is a student or instructor of aeronautics or is giving or receiving any kind of training or instruction or has any duty incident to the operation of said aircraft * * *."
Most of the material facts were without dispute. The policy of insurance on the life of Captain Donald G. Elliott was in force at the time of his death. His parents, the plaintiffs, appellants, were named as beneficiaries. Due notice of death was admitted. The parties agreed that the following "Summary of Facts" submitted by Colonel Robert A. Prince "represents the facts of the flight and death of Captain Elliott as recited therein and may be admitted in evidence without further authentication."
Both the plaintiffs and the defendant moved for summary judgment on the foregoing admitted facts. The plaintiffs also established by their affidavits that Captain Elliott was a strong and excellent swimmer, and since childhood had been able to swim "great lengths"; that he served in the United States Air Force for six and one-half years, during which period he took various survival courses; including a sea survival course of approximately two weeks' duration. The plaintiffs also offered the affidavit of technical Sergeant Danny E. Morris which established his familiarity with water survival and with life saving equipment. Sergeant Morris' affidavit continued:
The defendant assigned some thirteen grounds of objection to Sergeant Morris' affidavit, and the district court, without indicating the ground on which it relied, sustained the defendant's objection. Later the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's motion, except for ordering the return of $849.20 representing the premiums paid on the insurance policy.1
If Sergeant Morris' affidavit were admitted for any purpose other than its possible aid to the court in its determination of whether there was a genuine issue as to any material fact and whether the moving party was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law,2 its admission would necessitate a denial of the defendant's motion for summary judgment, for the weight to be accorded true opinion evidence is always for the jury or other trier of the facts.3 In other words, if opinion evidence is relevant, then the case is simply not one to be determined on motion for summary judgment. Perhaps for that reason Rule 56(e) does not allow the admission of opinion evidence, but provides that "supporting and...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lincoln Liberty Life Ins. Co. v. Goodman, 8553
...181 F.2d 606 (5th Cir. 1950); Smith v. Metropolitan Ins. Co., 29 N.J.Super. 478, 102 A.2d 797 (1954); Elliott v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, 388 F.2d 362 (5th Cir. 1968); Goforth v. Franklin Life Insurance Company, 202 Kan . 413, 449 P.2d 477 (1969); Howard v. Equitable Lif......
-
Crumley v. Memorial Hospital, Inc.
...64 S.Ct. 724, 728, 88 L.Ed. 967, 972; Hughes v. American Jawa, Ltd., C.A. 8th (1976), 529 F.2d 21, 252; Elliott v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., C.A. 5th (1968), 388 F.2d 362, 3653; Kern v. Tri-State Ins. Co., C.A. 8th (1967), 386 F.2d 754, 7562, 3. This is so, because the opinion of an......
-
Schroder v. Goldrus Drilling Co., Civ. A. No. 85-1513 "L".
...affiant's opinion is not founded in the facts of this case, it must be disregarded. See generally Elliott v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company, 388 F.2d 362, 365-66 (5th Cir.1968); Kern v. Tri-State Insurance Company, 386 F.2d 754, 756 (8th Cir.1967). Moreover, the affidavit consi......
-
Board of Trustees of Employees Retirement System of Texas v. Benge
...of aviation and one such perceived risk was death by drowning after an airplane is downed at sea. See Elliott v. Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 388 F.2d 362, 368 (5th Cir.1968). In Neel v. Mutual Life Insurance Co., 131 F.2d 159 (2d Cir.1942), the Second Circuit also refused to limit the......