Life & Cas. Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Powell, 2 Div. 102
Decision Date | 14 April 1937 |
Docket Number | 2 Div. 102,105. |
Citation | 180 So. 559,235 Ala. 537 |
Parties | LIFE & CASUALTY INS. CO. OF TENNESSEE v. POWELL (TWO CASES. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dallas County; John Miller, Judge.
Action by Elizabeth C. Powell against the Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee, to recover double indemnity under a policy of life insurance, and a like action by W. Erskine Powell against the same defendant. From judgments for the plaintiffs, defendant appeals.
Reversed and remanded in both cases.
Mallory & Mallory, of Selma, for appellant.
Pettus & Fuller and Theodore L. Wade, all of Selma, for appellees.
These two cases were by agreement of the parties, and by proper orders of the court made therein, consolidated in the circuit court, and tried as one case, with separate verdicts and separate judgments entered in each of the cases.
The policies of insurance sued on were identical, mutatis mutandis, with respect to the names of the two beneficiaries.
The trial resulted in a verdict in favor of each of the plaintiffs, and judgments accordingly. It is from these judgments the present appeals are prosecuted.
The insurer, appellant here, prior to the bringing of the suits paid to each of the beneficiaries the face amount of each of the policies, and these suits involve only the double indemnity feature of the policies.
For convenience, we shall discuss the case of Life & Casualty Insurance Company of Tennessee v. Elizabeth C. Powell, and what we shall say with reference to that case will apply equally to the case of same appellant v. W. Erskine Powell. The facts are the same.
The appellant on the 13th day of February, 1923, issued a policy of insurance upon the life of Dasie Compton Powell, with Elizabeth C. Powell, wife of the insured, as the beneficiary or in case of her death before that of the insured, then with W. Erskine Powell, as beneficiary in succession. Mrs. Powell survived her husband, and brings this suit upon said policy.
The policy contract contained the following provisions with reference to the waiver of payment of premiums and payment of monthly income, on disability, which we here set out:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Burke v. American Sav. Life Ins. Co.
...any premium. If a different meaning is intended then more specific language should be used, as was done in Life and Casualty Company of Tennessee v. Powell, supra: "The insurer has the opportunity to have the language the contract selected with great care and deliberation by experts and leg......
-
Kiley v. Pacific Mut. Life Ins. Co.
... ... 253 KILEY v PACIFIC MUT. LIFE INS. CO. 6 Div. 328. Supreme Court of Alabama February 9, 1939 ... November 1936, the first installment of to-wit $2.90 on ... said policy should be paid. And ... In ... Continental Cas. Co. v. Vines, 201 Ala. 486, 78 So ... 392, ... Co. of ... Tennessee v. Powell, 235 Ala. 537, 180 So. 559; ... ...
-
Burke v. Am. Savings Life Ins. Co.
...Great Southern Life Ins. Co. v. Jones, 35 F. (2d) 122; Kansas City Life Ins. Co. v. Pettit, 61 Pac. (2d) 1027; Life & Casualty Ins. Co. of Tennessee v. Powell (Ala.), 180 So. 559. (2) Instruction No. 2 is erroneous, because it directs a verdict and ignores the question of whether or not the......
-
Coleman v. Hamilton Storage Co.
... ... 553 COLEMAN v. HAMILTON STORAGE CO. 2 Div. 108.Supreme Court of AlabamaApril 14, 1938 ... v. Hood, 212 ... Ala. 216, 219, par. 9, 102 So. 35, 37 ... The ... court did not ... ...