Fetner v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 15360.

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtBAKER, Justice
Citation18 S.E.2d 521
PartiesFETNER. v. AETNA LIFE INS. CO. (two cases).
Decision Date29 January 1942
Docket NumberNo. 15360.

18 S.E.2d 521

FETNER.
v.
AETNA LIFE INS. CO. (two cases).

No. 15360.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 29, 1942.


[18 S.E.2d 521]

Appeal from Richland County Court, of Richland County; A. W. Holman, Judge.

Actions by Frank M. Fetner against Aetna Life Insurance Company, to recover total disability benefits provided in life policies. From the judgments, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Robinson & Robinson, of Columbia, for appellant.

Douglas McKay and John B. McCutche-on, Jr., both of Columbia, for respondent.

BAKER, Justice.

This appeal involves two cases which were by stipulation of counsel tried together in the Richland County Court.

In the trial of the case, plaintiff (appellant) was held to proof of total and permanent disability resulting from a lung abscess, from which holding appellant did not except.

The provision in the policies on which appellant sought recovery reads as follows: "If total disability of the insured begin after the date of this policy and before age sixty, and if due proof be furnished the Company after such disability has existed for a period of six months, and if such disability presumably will during lifetime prevent the insured from pursuing any occupation for wages or profit, or * * *, the insured shall be deemed to be totally and permanently disabled within the meaning of this policy."

When all the testimony was in, the respondent moved for a directed verdict on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence in the record to warrant the submission to the jury of the issue of total and permanent disability. This motion was granted, and the appellant comes to this Court alleging error in the granting thereof; and also alleges error in refusing to allow the employer of appellant to answer the question as to whether the appellant was able to carry on the duties of office manager of the Cary Printing Company after his operation; and to testify as to whether the plaintiff was as valuable an employee of the Cary Printing Company after his operation as before; and in re-

[18 S.E.2d 522]

fusing to permit the appellant to testify as to his financial condition just prior to the time he returned to work.

The Cary Printing Company (job printers) at Columbia, South Carolina, is owned solely by Mr. Harry Cary. The appellant had been working for Cary continuously from 1924 until he became ill in January, 1940, which illness was finally diagnosed as a lung abscess. He underwent two operations at a hospital, and during the second operation, according to the testimony of one of his physicians, the affected lung was accidently collapsed, making it necessary to stop the operation at that point, and unnecessary to thereafter operate, the collapse of the lung resulting in a natural drainage of the abscess. The wound was packed from time to time and through drainage and absorption the abscess finally disappeared and the wound healed. There is nothing in any of the medical testimony from which a reasonable inference could be drawn that there was not a complete recovery from the lung abscess.

The appellant continued to work intermittently from January, 1940, the inception of his illness, until April 9, 1940, when he was carried to the hospital where he remained until May 5, 1940. He then went home and stayed in bed for several weeks, but on June 17, 1940,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Harleysville Grp. Ins., Corp. v. Heritage Cmtys., Inc., Appellate Case No. 2013-001281
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 26, 2017
    ...of legal error in its exercise, and resulting prejudice to appellant's rights." (citing Fetner v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521 (1942) )). Additionally, Harleysville contends it was error for the Special Referee not to construe its motion for judgment as a matter of la......
  • Harleysville Grp. Ins., Corp. v. Heritage Cmtys., Inc., Appellate Case No. 2013-001281
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 11, 2017
    ...of legal error in its exercise, and resulting prejudice to appellant's rights." (citing Fetner v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521 (1942))).Additionally, Harleysville contends it was error for the Special Referee not to construe its motion for judgment as a matter of law......
  • Welch v. Whitaker, No. 0202
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 28, 1984
    ...Cudd v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 310 S.E.2d 830, 833 (S.C.App.1983); see also Fetner v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521 (1942). A manifest abuse of discretion has not been shown in this instance. Indeed, when the letter's overall contents are considered, reversible......
  • Chastain v. United Ins. Co., No. 17253
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1957
    ...legal error in its exercise, and resulting prejudice to appellant's rights can be shown. Fetner v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521. If such testimony Page 469 had been admitted, extraneous issues involving these policies would have been injected into the trial of this c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Harleysville Grp. Ins., Corp. v. Heritage Cmtys., Inc., Appellate Case No. 2013-001281
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • July 26, 2017
    ...of legal error in its exercise, and resulting prejudice to appellant's rights." (citing Fetner v. Aetna Life Ins. Co.,199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521 (1942) )). Additionally, Harleysville contends it was error for the Special Referee not to construe its motion for judgment as a matter of la......
  • Harleysville Grp. Ins., Corp. v. Heritage Cmtys., Inc., Appellate Case No. 2013-001281
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • January 11, 2017
    ...of legal error in its exercise, and resulting prejudice to appellant's rights." (citing Fetner v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521 (1942))).Additionally, Harleysville contends it was error for the Special Referee not to construe its motion for judgment as a matter of law......
  • Welch v. Whitaker, No. 0202
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • February 28, 1984
    ...Cudd v. John Hancock Mutual Life Ins. Co., 310 S.E.2d 830, 833 (S.C.App.1983); see also Fetner v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521 (1942). A manifest abuse of discretion has not been shown in this instance. Indeed, when the letter's overall contents are considered, reversible......
  • Chastain v. United Ins. Co., No. 17253
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1957
    ...legal error in its exercise, and resulting prejudice to appellant's rights can be shown. Fetner v. Aetna Life Insurance Co., 199 S.C. 79, 18 S.E.2d 521. If such testimony Page 469 had been admitted, extraneous issues involving these policies would have been injected into the trial of this c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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