King v. Travelers' Ins. Co. Of Hartford

• Decision Date: 06 May 1897
• Citation: 101 Ga. 64,28 S.E. 661
• Parties: KING v. TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

28 S.E. 661

101 Ga. 64

KING

v.TRAVELERS' INS. CO. OF HARTFORD, CONN.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

May 6, 1897.

Accident Insurance —Scope of Risk—Interpretation of Policy.

1. Where a policy of accident insurance stipulates for the payment to the insured of a specified sum per week as an indemnity against loss of time resulting from accidental physical injuries, and also provides that, "if such injuries are sustained while riding as a passenger in any conveyance using steam, cable, or electricity as a motive power, the amount to bepaid shall be double the sum above specified, " the insured, if injured while attempting to alight from a moving electric street car, is to be regarded as having been injured "while riding as a passenger in" the car, and, if thus injured, under circumstances entitling him to receive from the company a weekly indemnity in any amount, is to be compensated under the double indemnity clause above quoted.

2. The foregoing is true although another clause of the policy includes in an enumeration of certain risks, which are not to be thereby covered, injuries occasioned by "entering, or trying to enter, or leaving, a moving conveyance using steam as a motive power (except cable and electric street cars)." This latter clause has no relation to that allowing the double indemnity, and cannot be construed as excepting from its operation claims arising from injuries received upon electric cars.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Error from city court of Floyd; G. A. H. Harris, Judge.

Action by Horace E. King against the Travelers' Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., on a policy of insurance. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error. Reversed.

Reece & Denny, for plaintiff in error.

Rowell & Rowell, for defendant in error.

COBB, J. King sued the Travelers' Insurance Company upon a policy of accident Insurance. The defendant admitted a liability for $125, and no more; while the plaintiff contended that it was liable for double that amount, under the following clause of the policy: "If such injuries are sustained while riding as a passenger In any passenger conveyance using steam, cable, or electricity as a motive power, the amount to be paid shall be double the sum above specified." The only question presented is whether the company Is liable under the double indemnity clause above quoted. The plaintiff was injured while attempting to alight from a moving street car using electricity as a motive power. It is conceded that the injury to the...