Legg v. United Ben. Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 02 April 1951 |
| Citation | 103 Cal.App.2d 228,229 P.2d 454 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | LEGG v. UNITED BEN. LIFE INS. CO. Civ. 18050. |
Albert C. Garber and B. W. Minsky, Los Angeles, for appellant.
J. Edward Haley, Los Angeles, for respondent.
From a judgment in favor of defendant in an action to recover disability benefits on a policy of health and accident insurance, plaintiff appeals. 1
The only question for determination is whether the trial court committed prejudicial error in permitting defendant to introduce testimony of a compromise settlement between plaintiff and a third party, which compromise and settlement arose out of the same accident that was the basis of plaintiff's claim for disability benefits against defendant.
Plaintiff was injured as she was attempting to board a streetcar. The policy upon which she seeks recovery provides for monthly payments of $100 for total disability. Defendant admitted that she received injuries while the policy was in force and paid her $100 for one month's total disability. The nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries was the basis of the controversy between the parties which led to the instant action.
Defendant introduced into evidence without objection two documents signed by plaintiff which were statements to the transit company relating to her injuries. Plaintiff concedes this evidence was admissible for impeachment purposes and as an admission against interest. She raises no question with regard to the introduction of those documents but contends the jury was prejudiced by the following testimony which was admitted over her objection:
'Q. You later settled your controversy with the L. A. Transit Company, did you not? A. I did, yes. * * *
'
The evidence as to the extent of plaintiff's injuries is conflicting and it is her contention that from the above testimony the jury could have inferred (1) she was trying to collect twice for the same accident, and (2) if there had been a disability, it must have ended at the time of the settlement. Defendant agrees the evidence may have been prejudicial but asserts it was admissible for the purposes of impeachment and as an admission against interest.
Since plaintiff had not denied she had made a settlement with the transit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carson v. Facilities Development Co.
...on another point in People v. Green (1980) 27 Cal.3d 1, 39, 164 Cal.Rptr. 1, 609 P.2d 468; see also Legg v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co. (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 228, 229, 229 P.2d 454; Pendell v. Westland Life Ins. Co. (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 766, 776-777, 214 P.2d As Kurtz points out, Carson's ......
-
Legg v. United Ben. Life Ins. Co. of Omaha
...briefly made to certain documents identified only as 'exhibits' in other prior cases--Legg v. United Benefit Life Ins. Co. (No. 541 710), 103 Cal.App.2d 228, 229 P.2d 454; 136 Cal.App.2d 894, 289 P.2d 553; and Legg v. Mutual Benefit H. & A. of Omaha (No. 540 669), 136 Cal.App.2d 887, 289 P.......
-
Fetters v. Ting
...(1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 617-618, disapproved on other grounds in People v. Carbajal (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1114, 1126; Legg v. United Ben. Life Ins. Co. (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 228, 229.) The standard elements of breach of contract are a contract, performance or excusable nonperformance, breach, and......
-
Hall v. City of Fremont
...are inapposite. (People v. Richards (1976) 17 Cal.3d 614, 617-618 [statement by actual party to the litigation]; Legg v. United Ben. Life Ins. Co. (1951) 103 Cal.App.2d 228, 229 [same]; Pendell v. Westland Life Ins. Co. (1950) 95 Cal.App.2d 766, 776-777 [insurance rider should not have been......