Hefner v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York
Decision Date | 05 June 1913 |
Citation | 160 S.W. 330 |
Parties | HEFNER v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK. |
Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
Appeal from District Court, Reeves County; S. J. Isaacs, Judge.
Action by T. J. Hefner against the Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
J. W. Parker and Hefner & Cooke, all of Pecos, for appellant. Nealon, Neill & Thomason, of El Paso, for appellee.
Appellant filed this suit March 23, 1912, to recover on an accident insurance policy for total disability not exceeding 200 weeks, at $25 per week, as an attorney at law, alleging that the accident happened about August 20, 1909. The defendant, answering, pleaded that the policy upon which plaintiff sought to recover provided, first, that written notice should be given to the company as soon as might be possible, together with full particulars; that this provision was a condition precedent to the right of recovery; that at least six months had elapsed after the alleged accident before notice was given. Further pleaded that the policy provided that legal proceedings could not be brought on the policy before the expiration of three months from the date of filing final proofs, and not at all unless begun within six months from the date specified for filing final proofs, and, further, that plaintiff filed his notice many months after the accident, and that he filed no affirmative proof of disability. Defendant further alleged that the policy insured against bodily injury sustained through accidental means, resulting independently and exclusively of all other causes in immediate, continuous, and total disability that prevents the assured from performing any and every kind of duty pertaining to his occupation, and that plaintiff's injuries did not come within this clause of the policy, therefore he should not recover. The parties announced ready for trial before a jury, and the evidence introduced, whereupon the court instructed a verdict for the defendant, and the only assignment of error which can be considered charges that this peremptory charge is such an error as to require a reversal of the case. The question, therefore, for this court to pass on is, Did the plaintiff, by his pleading and proof, make a prime facie case against the defendant?
The portions of the policy, and all the evidence essential to this opinion we quote as follows:
T. J. Hefner, plaintiff, testified: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Metropolitan Casualty Ins. Co. v. Cato
... ... Glazier, 150 S. W., 549. There is also the Mississippi ... case of Fidelity Mutual Life v. Miazza, 93 Miss. 18, ... and 423, in which this court held that evidence of the ... 569; Mutual Insurance Co. v. Ingraham, 34 ... Miss. 215 ... The ... case of Hefner v. F. & C. (Texas C. C. A.), 160 S.W ... 330, will possibly be quoted by opposing counsel to ... R. Cato instituted suit against the Metropolitan Casualty ... Insurance Company of New York in the circuit court of ... Washington county to recover accident benefits for a certain ... ...
-
New York Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Coffman
...of time greatly in excess of 16 days. LeSage v. Utilities Insurance Co., 131 F.2d 536 (5th Cir., 1942) (2 years); Hefner v. Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York, 160 S.W. 330 (Tex.Civ.App., El Paso, 1913, certified question answered 110 Tex. 596, 222 S.W. 996) (10 months); Texas Glass & Pain......
-
Jefferson Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Curfman, 12750.
...82 S.W.2d 414. In Commonwealth Bonding & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Bryant, 113 Tex. 21, 240 S.W. 893, and Hefner v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 110 Tex. 596, 160 S.W. 330, 222 S.W. 966, the Supreme Court construed a policy which contracted for payment upon disability to perform the duties of the in......
-
Travelers' Ins. Co. v. Scott
...manifest, and appellant has cited numerous authorities upholding the validity of such provisions. Thus in the case of Hefner v. Fidelity & Casualty Co., 160 S. W. 330, by one of our own courts of Civil Appeals, it was held "A delay of ten months in giving an accident insurance company notic......