Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tenn. v. Brown
| Decision Date | 03 July 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 19730,19730 |
| Citation | 213 Ga. 390,99 S.E.2d 98 |
| Parties | LIFE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF TENNESSEE v. Lucile BROWN. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Martin, Snow & Grant, Macon, for plaintiff in error.
Abbott & Abbott, Louisville, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
For an annual premium of $36.18, Life and Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee issued to Erasmus R. Brown a twenty-pay life-insurance policy in the amount of $1,000, and for an additional annual premium of $2, it issued to him a supplemental accident policy which in part provides: 'Upon due proof that the death of the insured occurred in consequence of bodily injury affected solely through external violent and accidental means of which, except in case of drowning or of internal injuries revealed by an autopsy, there is a visible wound or contusion on the exterior of the body, and that such death occurred within ninety days after such injuries were sustained and as the direct result thereof independent of all other causes, the company will pay an additional sum equal to the single sum insured.' Mrs. Erasmus R. (Lucile) Brown, the beneficiary, brought a suit against the insurer for $1,000 on the supplemental accident policy. in addition to what is stated above, her petition as amended alleges in substance the following facts: The insured, while eating his noonday meal on January 15, 1956, experienced severe pain in his abdominal region, and his physician found that he was suffering from acute but uncomplicated appendicitis of short duration. Approximately 7 hours later, he was prepared for an appendectomy. While being administered ether, he vomited and certain food in his stomach, which had not been digested and which had not been sufficiently masticated, lodged in his windpipe and stopped the flow of oxygen to his brain for such a length of time that it was irreparably injured and such injury to his brain was externally revealed by cyanosis--a bluish tint to the skin. From the injury thus inflicted he died on January 19, 1956. The policy sued on was of full force and effect at the time of his death. The amended petition was demurred to on the ground that it failed to state a cause of action for the relief sought. It was overruled by the trial judge, and his judgment was sustained by the Court of Appeals. Life and Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee v. Brown, 95 Ga.App. 354, 98 S.E.2d 68. The case came to this court for review on certiorari to the Court of Appelas. Held:
1. The motion to dismiss this litigation on the ground that the writ of certiorari was improvidently granted, since the question it presents for review is not one of great public concern, gravity, and importance, is without merit and is therefore denied.
2. Insurance against death by accident is usually, as here, afforded for a small premium and the coverage is correspondingly narrow. The liability is guarded by carefully chosen words, and a court has no more right by strained construction to make the policy more beneficial by extending the coverage contracted for than it would have to increase the amount of the insurance. Deliberately to do either would be a judicial wrong. In this case the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continental Assur. Co. v. Rothell
...to the contrary is ruled in Davision v. National Life & Accident Ins. Co., 106 Ga.App. 187, 126 S.E.2d 811; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee, v. Brown, 213 Ga. 390, 99 S.E.2d 98; Travelers Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Newsome, 147 Ga. 608, 95 S.E. 4; Power v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co.,......
-
Liberty Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Morris
...contusion on the exterior of the body, conditions of proof under the policy. Said the Supreme Court, Life and Casualty Insurance Co. of Tennessee v. Brown (213 Ga. 390, 391, 99 S.E.2d 98): 'Conceding, but not holding, that the amended petition is sufficient to show that the insured died fro......
-
Holman v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.
...the coverage contracted for than it would have to increase the amount of the insurance. (quoting Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Brown , 213 Ga. 390, 99 S.E.2d 98, 100 (1957) ).3 B. Analysis of Policy Exclusion4 Many policies, like the one at issue here, contain an exclusion which spec......
-
Interstate Life & Acc. Ins. Co. v. Upshaw
...See in this connection: Davison v. Nat'l Life and Accident Ins. Co., 106 Ga.App. 187, 126 S.E.2d 811; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. v. Brown, 213 Ga. 390, 391(2), 99 S.E.2d 98; Johnson v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 24 Ga.App. 431, 432, 101 S.E. 134; Templeton v. Kennesaw Life & Accident Ins. Co., 216 ......