Inman v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co.

Decision Date13 February 1932
Citation45 S.W.2d 1073,164 Tenn. 12
PartiesINMAN v. LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Davidson County; A. B. Neil, Judge.

Action by Maggie Lee Inman against the Life & Casualty Insurance Company. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant brings error.

Reversed and dismissed.

M. P Estes, of Nashville, for plaintiff in error.

W. C Cherry and Jack Norman, both of Nashville, for defendant in error.

CHAMBLISS J.

The insurance company appeals from a judgment for $1,000 on a policy contract, and insists that on the facts shown by the stipulation in the record there is no liability. Plaintiff is the beneficiary under a limited accident policy on the life of her deceased husband, William E. Inman. He was an employee of a Nashville furniture house, and at the time of the accident which resulted in his death he was aiding in the delivery of a truckload of furniture. The truck was being driven by another employee, who was riding on the driver's seat in a closed cab. A third employee called Inman's attention to an article of furniture which appeared to be slipping, and he got on a box, or trunk, to adjust or hold the article. The truck was moving at not more than fifteen or eighteen miles an hour, and, as it passed through an underpass of the Tennessee Central Railroad, Inman's head, being above the level of the furniture load, struck an iron girder of the underpass, and he was knocked from the truck and instantly killed. Neither the truck nor the furniture with which it was loaded collided or came in contact with the underpass, and there was no injury to the truck. It is, of course, conceded that the deceased met his death by accident, but it is insisted that the accident which he suffered was not within the terms of this policy, which carries a weekly premium of 5 cents only with an accidental death benefit of $1,000, and which is limited as to liability as follows:

"The Life & Casualty Ins. Company of Tennessee hereby insures the person named in said schedule against the result of bodily injuries received during the time this policy is in force, and effected solely by external, violent and accidental means strictly in the manner hereafter stated, subject to all the provisions and limitations hereinafter contained, as follows:

If the insured shall be struck by a vehicle which is being propelled by steam, cable, electricity, naphtha, gasoline, horse, compressed air or liquid power, while insured is walking or standing on a public highway, which term, Public Highway, as here used shall not be construed to include any portion of railroad or interurban yards, station grounds, or right of way except where crossed by a thoroughfare dedicated to and used by the public for automobile or horse vehicle traffic:

Or if the insured shall by the collision of or by any accident to any railroad passenger car, passenger steamship, public omnibus, street railway car, taxicab or automobile, stage or bus, which is being driven or operated at the time by a person regularly employed for that purpose, and in which such Insured is traveling as a fare paying passenger or on which he is lawfully riding on a pass; or by the collision of or by any accident to any private horse drawn vehicle or private motor driven automobile in which Insured is riding or driving; or shall by any accident to any...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Interstate Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Houston
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • June 29, 1962
    ...Hickman v. Wright, 141 Tenn. 412, 210 S.W. 447; Moore v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 162 Tenn. 682, 40 S.W.2d 403; Inman v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 164 Tenn. 12, 45 S.W.2d 1073; United States Stove Corp., for Use and Benefit of Henderson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 169 Tenn. 264, 84 S.W.2d In B......
  • Ludlow v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn.
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • July 2, 1948
    ... ... interpretations. Then the policy is to be construed most ... favorably to the insured. Where ambiguity is lacking, resort ... to the rule designed to aid the court in ascertaining a ... doubtfully expressed intention is not permissible.' ...          Again, ... in Inman v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co., 164 Tenn. 12, ... 45 S.W.2d 1073, 1074, opinion by Justice Chambliss, it is ...          'We ... do not overlook the rule that ambiguous language in an ... insurance contract is to be construed most favorably to the ... insured. But, where the language is ... ...
  • Simpkins v. Business Men's Assur. Co. of America
    • United States
    • Tennessee Court of Appeals
    • June 26, 1948
    ... ...          Suit on ... a life policy by Gracie Wayman Simpkins against Business ... Men's Assurance ... Wolfe v ... Mut. Life Ins. Co., 3 Tenn.App. 199 ...          If a ... contract of ... v. Solinsky, 150 Tenn ... 206, 263 S.W. 71, 35 A.L.R. 1007; Inman v. Life & Accident ... Ins. Co., 164 Tenn. 12, 45 S.W.2d 1073; ... [215 ... ...
  • Brown v. Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
    • March 6, 1933
    ... ... brief suggests, that these additions are due to two late ... decisions against it; that of Manness v. Life & Cas. Ins ... Co., decided by its own Tennessee court in 1930, and reported ... in 161 Tenn. 41, 28 S.W.2d 339, wherein it was held that an ... eye ... automobile was not the automobile or a part thereof ... So, in ... Inman v. Life & Cas. Ins. Co., 164 Tenn. 12, 45 ... S.W.2d 1073, another Tennessee case, where the policy ... specified "vehicle," the court said that ... ...
  • 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