McLendon v. Carolina Life Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | 30585. |
| Citation | 31 S.E.2d 429,71 Ga.App. 557 |
| Parties | McLENDON v. CAROLINA LIFE INS. CO. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Douglas Evans & Cole, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
J Lon Duckworth, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
This was an action on a double-indemnity clause of an insurance policy issued by the Carolina Life Insurance Company on the life of Thomas O. McLendon in which William M. McLendon, the plaintiff in error, was the beneficiary. The case was tried on an agreed statement of facts substantially as follows: The policy sued on was in full force and effect with a face value of five hundred dollars and an additional provision designated as "double indemnity provision" whereby the company agreed to pay in addition to the face of the policy the sum of five hundred dollars in the event the death of the insured resulted "directly, independently, and exclusively of all other causes from bodily injuries solely through external, violent, and accidental means," etc. The policy further provided "that this additional benefit shall not be payable, provided such death resulted directly or indirectly from (a) self-destruction or any attempt thereat while sane or insane or injuries intentionally inflicted by the insured upon himself, *** (g) injuries contracted or sustained while violating or attempting to violate the law or in resisting arrest, (h) the taking of poison or inhaling of gas voluntarily or otherwise, (i) homicide." Thomas O McLendon came to his death on August 4, 1943, as a result of a blow on the head with a blunt instrument inflicted by one Jim Ramsey. The company paid the face value of said policy and this action was only for the additional double indemnity value. The company resisted payment on the ground that death was caused by "homicide." The court sustained the position of the company and granted a judgment in its behalf, to which judgment a motion for new trial was made and overruled and the case brought to this court for review.
The only question for decision is whether or not the insurance company is liable for double indemnity on this policy by reason of the double-indemnity provision attached thereto and the exceptions contained therein.
The agreed statement of facts shows undisputedly that the insured died on August 4, 1943, as the result of a blow on the head inflicted on the same day with a blunt instrument by one Jim Ramsey for the purpose of robbing him.
Gaynor v. Travelers Ins. Co., 12 Ga.App. 601, 603, 77 S.E. 1072, 1073. To meet these decisions one of the exceptions inserted in the policy was that no recovery could be had, provided death resulted directly or indirectly from "homicide."
The death of Thomas O. McLendon from a severe blow on the head which, under the undisputed evidence in this case, was inflicted for the purpose of robbing him, was a criminal homicide. Had it not been for the exception...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aleksich v. Mutual Ben. Health & Acc. Ass'n
... ... '11 ... Indemnity for loss of life of the Insured is payable to the ... beneficiary if surviving the ... ... Ferguson v. Penn Mut. Life Ins. Co., 305 Ill.App ... 537, 27 N.E.2d 548, 550, involved a permanent ... will be adopted. McLendon v. Carolina Life Ins. Co., ... 71 Ga.App. 557, 31 S.E.2d 429; Sturgis v ... ...
-
Horne v. Government Emp. Ins. Co.
...policy must be construed most liberally to effect object to be accomplished and strictly against the insurer. McLendon v. Carolina Life Ins. Co., 71 Ga.App. 557, 31 S.E.2d 429. (The object to be accomplished was to afford insurance, not to exclude insurance Where the meaning of policy is do......
-
Morris v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company
...in a group insurance contract, the provision most favorable to the insured will be adopted, e. g. McLendon v. Carolina Life Insurance Co., 71 Ga.App. 557, 31 S.E.2d 429 (1944). Where provisions are ambiguous, are subject to doubt, or are reasonably susceptible of two meanings, the interpret......
-
Big Bear Ranches, Inc. v. Georgia Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co.
...to all of such provisions without conflict." 13 Appleman, Insurance Law and Practice 43, § 7383, citing McLendon v. Carolina Life Ins. Co., 71 Ga.App. 557, 31 S.E.2d 429 (1944). "Moreover, where the language fixing the extent of the liability of the insurer is unambiguous and but one reason......