Landress v. Phoenix Mut. Life Ins. Co.
Decision Date | 06 June 1933 |
Docket Number | No. 6238.,6238. |
Parties | LANDRESS v. PHŒNIX MUT. LIFE INS. CO. et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
W. L. Frierson, of Chattanooga, Tenn. (R. H. Williams and R. P. Frierson, both of Chattanooga, Tenn., on the brief), for appellant.
Vaughn Miller, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellee Phœnix Mut. Life Ins. Co.
J. F. Finlay, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for appellee Travelers' Ins. Co.
Before MOORMAN, HICKS, and SIMONS, Circuit Judges.
Florence Samuels Landress, widow of Thomas L. Landress, brought separate suits against appellees, Phœnix Mutual Life Insurance Company and Travelers' Insurance Company. That against the Phœnix Company was upon two similar insurance policies which provide double indemnity only in the event that insured's death resulted "directly and independently of all other causes, from bodily injuries effected solely through external, violent and accidental causes * * *." The Phœnix Company contested double liability. The suit against the Travelers' Company was upon a single policy which provided for insurance against loss resulting only from "bodily injuries, effected directly and independently of all other causes, through external, violent and accidental means * * *."
The declarations in both cases are similar and embrace four counts. The principal averments upon which appellant relies are contained in the first and third counts. The second and fourth vary in expression but do not differ so materially from the first as to require or justify separate consideration. The third paragraph of the first counts alleges that: And the third count(s) after adopting the first, second, and third paragraphs of the first counts, contain the following additional averments:
The cases were consolidated in the District Court. Appellees demurred to all the counts in each declaration except the third and moved to make the third more specific, or, in the alternative, to strike the second paragraphs thereof. These motions to make the third counts more specific were sustained. Thereupon appellant announced that she was unable to comply with the order and by consent the motions to strike were treated as demurrers embracing all the grounds of demurrer to the first, second, and fourth counts. The demurrers of each defendant are similar and each contains eleven grounds. Both were sustained by the court. The essence of the one as to the Phœnix policy was that the declaration showed upon its face that the insured's death did not result "directly and independently of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...v. Phoenix [Mut. Life] Ins Co., 291 U.S. 491, 54 S.Ct. 461, 78 L.Ed. 934, 90 A.L.R. 1382, affirming the decision of this court, [6 Cir.] 65 F.2d 232, is an authoritative and conclusive approval of this distinction. The courts accepting it have generally held that where an injury is the resu......
-
Nicholas v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co.
...v. Phoenix (Mut. Life) Ins. Co., 291 U.S. 491, 54 S.Ct. 461, 78 L.Ed. 934, 90 A.L.R. 1382, affirming the decision of this court, (6 Cir.) 65 F.2d 232, is an authoritative and conclusive approval of this distinction. The courts accepting it have generally held that where an injury is the res......